A place for shallow people to meet other shallow people! I mean...a place for "attractive" people to meet other "attractive" people. Cause, I mean, who cares about anything but looks, right?
Posted by erosomniac (Member # 6834) on :
It's certainly no better or worse than people who use dating sites that are restricted for, say, Blacks, Asians, Mormons or Jews.
Posted by pfresh85 (Member # 8085) on :
Well if they can do this, maybe a good "place for nerds to meet other nerds" will develop online. I'm sure not meeting many nerds on the mainstream dating sites. Posted by erosomniac (Member # 6834) on :
quote:Originally posted by pfresh85: Well if they can do this, maybe a good "place for nerds to meet other nerds" will develop online. I'm sure not meeting many nerds on the mainstream dating sites.
In Seattle, we call it "craigslist."
Posted by pfresh85 (Member # 8085) on :
I've seen this "craigslist" you speak of (at least the Dallas area one), but I wasn't too impressed.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
Ah ha!
The return of DorkDater.com!
Posted by Boon (Member # 4646) on :
quote:Originally posted by pfresh85: Well if they can do this, maybe a good "place for nerds to meet other nerds" will develop online. I'm sure not meeting many nerds on the mainstream dating sites.
Judging from all the hook-ups, I'd say this is it. "Welcome to HatCrack, where nerds and geeks find each other." Posted by RunningBear (Member # 8477) on :
I have to check that url...
tsk.. doesnt exist.
Posted by Boon (Member # 4646) on :
PS: Lyrhawn, if you could please email me your logins, I'll do that paperwork for you tonight and get them in the mail in the morning. Sorry it's taken so long. Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
Boon's post if even funnier if you take it to be following his last post in this thread.
Posted by Boon (Member # 4646) on :
?? "his" referring to me? Posted by ketchupqueen (Member # 6877) on :
I think she meant Lyr's.
And the guys listed in my area are not even that hot. Pffft.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
quote:Originally posted by katharina: Boon's post if even funnier if you take it to be following his last post in this thread.
And Boon -
My profound thanks, expect an email sometime tonight.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote:Originally posted by erosomniac: It's certainly no better or worse than people who use dating sites that are restricted for, say, Blacks, Asians, Mormons or Jews.
Of course. Because cultural or religious beliefs are exactly the same as shallowness. Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
I don't know. I don't think there is a bad reason for not wanting to date someone.
It's so personal. What we want in other people is so personal, and if someone only wants to date people that have a BMI of 20, I can't really fault their desires.
Maybe I'm shallow? Because I have the preference that I won't date anyone shorter than me. I would just rather not. I also like brilliant, Mormon, articulate, well-read, and kind. Having dated a ton of people, those are the really the minimum requirements. If any one trait is missing, I'm not happy and any efforts to convince myself otherwise will fail. Since it's such a personal, subjective thing, I don't think any of those are shallow.
Maybe this site is seen as shallow because while almost everyone has "must be attractive to me" on their list, this site caters to those who put it first?
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote:I don't know. I don't think there is a bad reason for not wanting to date someone.
I disagree. I think there are a lot of bad/shallow/unworthy reasons, and we all have them.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
Whew, thank god that site exists.
Women I would never want to date ever shall frequent it and free up the general pool just a little bit.
Posted by steven (Member # 8099) on :
Incredibly, I agree with both porter and kat on this issue, simultaneously.
Somebody needs to sort this out. While I haven't spent every wakng moment of my life thinking about this issue, I have thought about it a little, and at different points over the last 18 years or so. I still have no definite conclusion, and I don't even know what that means, besides the fact that I am not great at making decisions.
Posted by erosomniac (Member # 6834) on :
quote:Originally posted by rivka:
quote:Originally posted by erosomniac: It's certainly no better or worse than people who use dating sites that are restricted for, say, Blacks, Asians, Mormons or Jews.
Of course. Because cultural or religious beliefs are exactly the same as shallowness.
Insofar as they pre-screen for a set of prerequisites that a person wants in a potential mate, increases the chances that they will have things in common and increases the chances their lifestyles are similar, absolutely.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
Sure. The guy who is naturally slim and the woman who has had $30,000 worth of plastic surgery should have lots in common.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
quote:I think there are a lot of bad/shallow/unworthy reasons, and we all have them.
I really don't. I don't think you can tell someone who they "should" be attracted to.
There are decisions that will probably lead to happy lives and decisions that probably won't, but it is still up to the individual to pick. Every person is their own dating Supreme Court.
Posted by El JT de Spang (Member # 7742) on :
quote:Originally posted by rivka: Sure. The guy who is naturally slim and the woman who has had $30,000 worth of plastic surgery should have lots in common.
Why shouldn't they?
None of the dating sites are perfect (as you well know). I don't see anything wrong with any sort of specialized dating website. Maybe it helps people for whom looks are atop their list find one another. I'm not one of those people, but it doesn't bother me that they have a place to connect.
It doesn't bother me that I'm not allowed on certain religious matchmaking sites. And it wouldn't bother me if there was a matchmaking site for D&D gamers, either.
Posted by erosomniac (Member # 6834) on :
quote:Originally posted by rivka: Sure. The guy who is naturally slim and the woman who has had $30,000 worth of plastic surgery should have lots in common.
If they're both on this dating site, we can probably assume a few things about them:
1) They're proud of the way they look. 2) They want a mate who looks as good as they do. 3) They're largely superficial, since looks are their primary prerequisite and are willing to advertise this fact to find what they want, which suggests to me they'd be interested in a lot of the same things.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
quote:3) They're largely superficial, since looks are their primary prerequisite and are willing to advertise this fact to find what they want, which suggests to me they'd be interested in a lot of the same things.
I don't think that this is a warranted assumption.
I strongly prefer to date people I find very attractive and who find me very attractive. That's not my primary prerequisite, but it is a huge perk and close to a deal breaker if it doesn't exist. Am I shallow?
I don't think so. In my experience, attractive people have a similar distribution of traits, like intelligence, humor, etc, that are my primary prerequisites. I don't think it is neccesarily shallow or superficial to value physical attractiveness. What is is valuing it over all other things.
Posted by breyerchic04 (Member # 6423) on :
But (without looking at that site) it is subjective as to whether you're attractive or not. It is not subjective if you're jewish or black or a geek. At least it is less so.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
Yes, but there are certain standards of physical attractiveness that are shared by a large segment of the population. I imagine, not having looked at the site in any detail, that these are close to the standards they are using.
For less common standards, say men who like really fat women, there are already specialty sites. Do people who think this is a shallow site also think that those sites are shallow too?
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
Breyer, what do you think about using subjective criteria for dating?
I know I used to not like the idea, but it was the several occasions of me TRYING to like someone that didn't meet my subjective idea that made me ultimately conclude that dating wasn't something anyone should have to force themselves to do.
Posted by Euripides (Member # 9315) on :
quote:Originally posted by erosomniac:
quote:Originally posted by pfresh85: Well if they can do this, maybe a good "place for nerds to meet other nerds" will develop online. I'm sure not meeting many nerds on the mainstream dating sites.
In Seattle, we call it "craigslist."
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
Now the site where the men must have a million dollar a year income and the women have to pass a very stringent "beauty" test, that sounds very shallow to me.
Posted by erosomniac (Member # 6834) on :
quote:Originally posted by MrSquicky:
quote:3) They're largely superficial, since looks are their primary prerequisite and are willing to advertise this fact to find what they want, which suggests to me they'd be interested in a lot of the same things.
I don't think that this is a warranted assumption.
I strongly prefer to date people I find very attractive and who find me very attractive. That's not my primary prerequisite, but it is a huge perk and close to a deal breaker if it doesn't exist. Am I shallow?
I don't think so. In my experience, attractive people have a similar distribution of traits, like intelligence, humor, etc, that are my primary prerequisites. I don't think it is neccesarily shallow or superficial to value physical attractiveness. What is is valuing it over all other things.
That's fine. I'm saying that in signing up for this dating site, you're advertising that physical appearance is your primary prerequisite, thus warranting calling its users superficial (which, incidentally, I don't consider a pejorative).
A certain amount of physical attractiveness is definitely a prerequisite for me dating someone, but like you, it's not the primary consideration, and I wouldn't consider myself shallow, even though it's a make-or-break deal.
Posted by erosomniac (Member # 6834) on :
quote:Originally posted by Euripides:
quote:Originally posted by erosomniac:
quote:Originally posted by pfresh85: Well if they can do this, maybe a good "place for nerds to meet other nerds" will develop online. I'm sure not meeting many nerds on the mainstream dating sites.
In Seattle, we call it "craigslist."
I'm only half joking. I set my former roommate up with a girl from a w4m ad, the title of which was something like "I firmly believe Dead Rising may be the greatest game in existence," and contained numerous gems like Penny Arcade / Invader Zim references, and lines like "if interested, send me an e-mail; otherwise, keep the picture of my tummy with my compliments." They're still together 6 (7?) months later, and it's led to some of the best stories ever.
For example: another of my friends came over to hang out and didn't know my roommate had a new girlfriend and asked about her. After the initial awkwardness of trying to explain "uh, my roommate found her on craigslist," he blurted it out, and my friend's response was: "HOLY CRAP, you're dating craigslist dead rising chick?!"
I love craigslist.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
eros, I disagree. They are saying that it is an important concern, but not their primary one.
People who sign up for a Jewish dating site, for example, aren't looking to date anyone who is Jewish, but rather people inside that pool that also have the requirements that they are looking for.
I don't see how this is different.
Posted by erosomniac (Member # 6834) on :
quote:Originally posted by MrSquicky: eros, I disagree. They are saying that it is an important concern, but not their primary one.
People who sign up for a Jewish dating site, for example, aren't looking to date anyone who is Jewish, but rather people inside that pool that also have the requirements that they are looking for.
I don't see how this is different.
I'm not sure how, in signing up for a dating site whose only prerequisite is physical attractiveness (or Jewishness, or what have you), you can possibly not be saying your primary concern is physical attractiveness.
Posted by El JT de Spang (Member # 7742) on :
Are you saying that people who join a Jewish dating site don't have 'Jewish' as their primary concern?
Posted by porcelain girl (Member # 1080) on :
You know, the site isn't really geared toward finding potential dates you find attractive; it's geared toward finding potential dates that fit into one sort of idea of attractive.
it's someone elses criteria. and if what you want fits in that criteria, and it is the most important thing on your list, then i probably wasn't going to try to date you anyways.
this site really doesn't bug me. it kinda weeds out the people i would rather not even be friends with for me. i agree it is shallow, but i wonder how many people on the site are looking for relationships that will exceed three years. heaven forbid anyone is looking to have kids - at least not untill women start carrying their wombs like helium balloons. heh.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
Maybe we are using primary concern differently. For me, primary concern is the most important thing you are using when determining who to date.
People join various dating sites to draw from a particular pool that they'd like to date in. Let's say there's a gamers site. People will join that site because they would prefer to meet gamers. But the thing that is going to determine whether or not they pick or continue dating someone on that site is likely not how good a gamer someone is, but a host of other factors.
Similarly, for many who join Jewish dating sites, they are looking to date in the pool of Jewish people (some, but far from all, exclusively). But, the primary thing is likely not going to be how Jewish someone is.
In the same way, people who join this site want to date attractive people, but I think it is not tenable to suggest that this is going to be their primary criteria for choosing who they date within that pool. I think (as I have a similar outlook) that it is likely that many of them are looking to date people who they are going to find attractive and be found attractive by who also are great conversationlists or good dancers or soppy romantics or a whole host of other factors. I don't think it is fair to me or them to say that we are primarily concerned about looks.
Posted by El JT de Spang (Member # 7742) on :
We are using primary concern differently, then.
Posted by erosomniac (Member # 6834) on :
The pool is people. In choosing a selective dating site, you are saying that regardless of what you end up discriminating by within that site, you are automatically removing everyone who doesn't meet that first criteria from your selection pool, period, regardless of their other characteristics.
How is that not primary?
Posted by JennaDean (Member # 8816) on :
quote:Originally posted by El JT de Spang: Are you saying that people who join a Jewish dating site don't have 'Jewish' as their primary concern?
In the same sense that a heterosexual male would have "female" as their primary concern. Not what a man would usually list as their primary concern, though ... there are a whole host of things he's looking for in a woman other than just that she be female. Same with a Jew ... "Jewish" is the starting point from which you then look for the things that are important to you.
ETA: not that you asked me ... but I do get the point of "narrowing the pool".
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
Because, when choosing inside that pool, they don't use the criteria as a major deterimining factor. I don't date very short girls. If there was a site that had a height requirement, I'd be more likely to join that one (all other things being equal) than one that did not. It just doesn't work out. Is height my primary concern?
I don't think so, but it does limit the pool of people I'm going to date.
---
Jenna, That's a very good way to put it.
Posted by El JT de Spang (Member # 7742) on :
I think that, if you were to take the perfect mate and list all of her qualities, the primary concern would be the one that, if it were to be reversed it would totally change her datability.
'Jewish' meets that criteria, as we discussed it above. 'Attractive' may also, although it also may not, depending on the person.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
Or female, or height, or having a certain level of intelligence, or having a certain degree of humor, a certain level of physical attractiveness or a whole mess of other things.
I don't date men, very short people, dumb people, people without a sense of humor, people I find ugly, people who stab me with knives, etc. Change any one of those things from my current girlfriend and we never would have gone out.
Which one of these is my priamry concern?
Posted by erosomniac (Member # 6834) on :
quote:Originally posted by JennaDean:
quote:Originally posted by El JT de Spang: Are you saying that people who join a Jewish dating site don't have 'Jewish' as their primary concern?
In the same sense that a heterosexual male would have "female" as their primary concern. Not what a man would usually list as their primary concern, though ... there are a whole host of things he's looking for in a woman other than just that she be female. Same with a Jew ... "Jewish" is the starting point from which you then look for the things that are important to you.
ETA: not that you asked me ... but I do get the point of "narrowing the pool".
I was about to use sexuality as an example myself.
If you are a heterosexual man, you're not going to date anyone that isn't female, period.
Would you consider that a primary concern, Squick?
Posted by erosomniac (Member # 6834) on :
quote:Originally posted by MrSquicky: Or female, or height, or having a certain level of intelligence, or having a certain degree of humor, a certain level of physical attractiveness or a whole mess of other things.
I don't date men, very short people, dumb people, people without a sense of humor, people I find ugly, people who stab me with knives, etc. Change any one of those things from my current girlfriend and we never would have gone out.
Which one of these is my priamry concern?
I don't know. But if you went onto a dating site like (I'm making these up) "straightdating.com" or "tallfriendfinder.com" or "IQMatch.com" or "ticklemyfunnybone.com" or "ionlydatepeoplewhodontstabmewithknives.com," then I'd know what your primary concern was based on which of those you decided to put a dating ad on.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
quote:then I'd know what your primary concern was based on which of those you decided to put a dating ad on.
And I'm saying no, no, you wouldn't. You'd know what pool of people I'd prefer to date in. And they can be combined. tallsmartfriendfinder.com. Also, I'm assuming whenever you sign up for a dating site, you make a choice in what gender you are looking for. So, you've already got at least two primary concerns with each site.
I was kidding with the people who don't stab me with knives thing, but that's actually an exageration of a real issue. Some dating sites conduct background checks and disallow people who have a criminal history. If someone joins one of them, is "not a criminal" their primary concern?
Also, I'm pretty sure that there is no law preventing people from signing up on multiple dating sites. What if I signed up for them all?
---
Look, if you want to use primary concern this way, then I can accept that. That means that people have a ton of primary concerns. But if you are going to say that these people are most interested in how attractive someone is when looking for people date, I'm pretty darn sure you are wrong. I know that is not true for me, but, were I looking and the type of person to go on dating sites, I could se myself signing up for this site.
Posted by Boris (Member # 6935) on :
"ionlydatepeoplewhodontstabmewithknives.com"
I am SO buying that domain Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote:Originally posted by MrSquicky: Similarly, for many who join Jewish dating sites, they are looking to date in the pool of Jewish people (some, but far from all, exclusively). But, the primary thing is likely not going to be how Jewish someone is.
"Jewish" is a binary factor.
Posted by camus (Member # 8052) on :
quote:I was kidding with the people who don't stab me with knives thing
So you mean you actually would be willing to date someone that stabs you with knives? I guess I've heard of stranger things. Posted by pfresh85 (Member # 8085) on :
I'd think not getting stabbed with knives might be a primary concern in dating. I'd rather not come home with scars after the first date. Maybe others have different feelings about that though. *imagines stabmewithknivesplease.com* Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
quote:"Jewish" is a binary factor.
So is "meets a certain set of physical attractiveness standards".
edit: Ooops. Sorry, I misunderstood.
It kind of depends on what definition of Jewishness you are using. The concepts of more Jewish and less Jewish are sensical in some contexts.
Posted by erosomniac (Member # 6834) on :
quote:Also, I'm pretty sure that there is no law preventing people from signing up on multiple dating sites. What if I signed up for them all?
Good point. I misspoke, I wouldn't know what your primary concern is (it also occured to me that someone could, you know, be lying). I would, however, know what your primary concern appears to be, and I think the assumption that it is your primary concern is a valid, fair one. The trait you advertise as selecting for is the one that will inevitably get treated as your primary concern, which is why the initial reaction to the link in this thread is overwhelmingly filled with adjectives like "shallow" and "superficial."
Posted by The Pixiest (Member # 1863) on :
If someone is only attracted to very attractive people, so be it.
I know I have some standards that are pretty damn shallow but you can't help who you're attracted to and who you're not.
I'm just glad I have my hubby and don't have to fiddle with the whole, horrible mess of dating anymore.
If sorting out the fugmos (like me) helps the beautiful people find love, lust and happiness, more power to them. I hope they squeeze out a ton of beautiful kids (who rebel and get peircings and shave their heads)
Pix
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
But we just covered that it is not a fair assumption. That is, you may feel justified in judging someone, but they quite likely don't have the trait that you are attributing to them.
I am not jsut looking for the most attractive girl I can find, but attractiveness is something I value and I have a minimum that I will accept in someone I'm dating. But the same is true for intelligence, outgoingness, sense of humor, and not stabbing me with knive-ishness. If you are setting up a site where I am only going to be presented with people who fit within the ranges of people I am going to date, I am going to prefer that site over another one that has a bunch of people who are going to be unacceptible.
Maybe you feel confortable sitting back and saying "Well, he's just superficial. All he is out for is looks." But that won't be true. It's just a prejudice that you somehow feel comfortable holding.
Posted by camus (Member # 8052) on :
quote:I know I have some standards that are pretty damn shallow but you can't help who you're attracted to and who you're not.
Is it still considered shallow if you can't help being attracted to a certain attribute?
Posted by MightyCow (Member # 9253) on :
Just about EVERYBODY uses looks as one of their primary dating criteria. How many of you are dating or want to date a person significantly less attractive than you? Have any of you ever been at a party and though, "Sweet heavens! That is one seriously ugly individual. I'm gonna go flirt."
Let's be honest, you don't want to shag an uggo. If you're an adult, and you're dating someone, you're eventually going to get to naked time, and you don't want to share your bed with a gross alien thing.
Everyone has a HUGE list of criteria for their potential dates. Physical attractiveness is on the list for almost every single person. So why the judgment about people who are honest about it and get it out of the way right off the bat.
Maybe they actually have a very important set of "deep" criteria that they want to spend a lot of time looking for, and they want to get the "shallow" looks out of the way first, so they can focus on what's important to them.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
I don't think these people are shallow, because I don't think it is possible to be shallow if you are being honest about what you want in a romantic partner.
I think there are wise criteria (no one married, no one malicious) and there are less-wise criteria (only drummers in aspiring rock bands who have a habit of living off their signifigant others), but I don't think there IS shallow criteria.
The specific dating sights do identify a sine qua non. If you are looking on a site that screens out non-Jews, then being Jewish is a sine qua non. If you are looking on a site that screens out everyone who doesn't fit a definition of beauty, then that set definition of beauty is a sine qua non.
What is most important can be told more easily from a given site if there is a variety to choose from. Someone who had a choice between a site for graduates from Ivy League schools (they exist) and this site and the chose the looks site is clearly saying they'd rather look in the pool of pretty people than in the pool of Ivy Leaguers.
Also, that they want someone who identifies themself as a pretty person over someone who identifies themself as an Ivy Leaguers. It isn't just showing what is important to the person looking, it is showing what they want the person they are looking for to think is important.
What if they want someone who is both a pretty person AND an Ivy Leaguer? If they started with the pretty site first, they are making as choice as to what kind of person they are getting - someone who thinks of herself as pretty first.
Of course, this falls apart for someone who signs up on every site they qualify for.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
quote:Also, that they want someone who identifies themself as a pretty person over someone who identifies themself as an Ivy Leaguers.
I wouldn't sign up for the Ivy League site. I might sign up for the attractive one. I don't think I identify myself as attractive more than I do an Ivy Leaguer. I'm just not particularly interested in a filtering of my dating pool to just Ivy Leaguers.
---
Incidentally, I think only wanting to date Ivy Leaguers is very likely shallow.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
There is no shallow.
Posted by camus (Member # 8052) on :
quote:I don't think these people are shallow, because I don't think it is possible to be shallow if you are being honest about what you want in a romantic partner.
I think the part that I italicized is the key. If someone is attracted to intelligent people, that's not shallow. If someone dates people based on the assumption that only Ivy Leaguers are intelligent, that would be shallow.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
camus, That's pretty much where I'm coming from. It's a status symbol or some silly prejudice.
I don't necessarily agree with the statement you quoted though. Someone who is honest about, let's say "I'm only looking for someone who is going to make other people jealous." is being honest about their reasons, but I still think they are being shallow.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
camus:
Hmm...I think it would be wrong (mistaken) and it would make me question their intelligence, but I don't think it would be shallow if they were really laboring under that misconception.
I think for me the honesty about attractions part has to do with why it is important. Because someone really has to be a pretty person to do it for them? Not shallow. Because they want someone pretty so their friends will think it cool? In that case, the date is a thing being used to impress friends. THAT's shallow. And dishonest unless the date knows that's the reason she's picked.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
What about the site I mentioned where the men have to have at least $1 million a year income and the women have extremely high beauty requirements?
Posted by MightyCow (Member # 9253) on :
I think the amount of judgment that people are willing to express says a lot about how important looks are to all of us. If it weren't a big deal, would you really care? Nobody would get up in arms about a dating site for people who like to knit.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
Same thing. If the pretty woman is attracted to and made to feel safe and loved by someone who can take care of her in a grand manner and the rich guy is honest about only desiring model-ly women, then I think the site is a great idea that will enable them to find each other. Not shallow.
Posted by erosomniac (Member # 6834) on :
quote: Maybe you feel confortable sitting back and saying "Well, he's just superficial. All he is out for is looks." But that won't be true. It's just a prejudice that you somehow feel comfortable holding.
No, I feel comfortable saying, "He joined a site where the existing members have to rate your looks at an 8 out of 10 in order to join, and have all been similarly rated, he's obviously concerned about looks." Any other trait he may be looking for won't even be on my radar, but that doesn't mean I'm assuming looks are all he cares about. I don't think anyone really assumes that. But I do think it's fair to assume that looks are foremost in his mind.
There are other factors which contribute to my assumption. For example, the minimum is an 8 out of 10, which is a standard of beauty I (and, I think, most people) consider pretty high, which makes it sound much more important. (Will continue later, work got super busy, this has been sitting open for some time, blah)
Also: is it still considered shallow if you can't help being attracted to a certain altitude?
Posted by MightyCow (Member # 9253) on :
Maybe the people at this site only care about dating people who don't think they're shallow for wanting to be attracted to their date.
Posted by steven (Member # 8099) on :
Oh, good thread.
Posted by ReikoDemosthenes (Member # 6218) on :
quote:Originally posted by rivka:
quote:Originally posted by MrSquicky: Similarly, for many who join Jewish dating sites, they are looking to date in the pool of Jewish people (some, but far from all, exclusively). But, the primary thing is likely not going to be how Jewish someone is.
"Jewish" is a binary factor.
I think he may mean how observant someone is. I have found that when I date, I can only date someone who holds her religion to a similar importance as me. If we do not, there is a disconnect and certain things just won't make sense to the other and will cause tension.
Similarly, a very orthodox Jew may have difficulty being in a relationship with a Jew whose orthodoxy only extends to observing Pesach and other than that and the other really important days, never considers their religion.
Posted by Amanecer (Member # 4068) on :
quote:Let's be honest, you don't want to shag an uggo. If you're an adult, and you're dating someone, you're eventually going to get to naked time, and you don't want to share your bed with a gross alien thing.
Your equation of unattractive people with gross aliens is disturbing to me.
quote:Just about EVERYBODY uses looks as one of their primary dating criteria. How many of you are dating or want to date a person significantly less attractive than you? Have any of you ever been at a party and though, "Sweet heavens! That is one seriously ugly individual. I'm gonna go flirt."
While it may be true that nobody thinks, "I want somebody ugly." People do tend to gravitate towards and feel most comfortable around people that look similar.
Posted by MightyCow (Member # 9253) on :
quote:Originally posted by Amanecer:
quote:Let's be honest, you don't want to shag an uggo. If you're an adult, and you're dating someone, you're eventually going to get to naked time, and you don't want to share your bed with a gross alien thing.
Your equation of unattractive people with gross aliens is disturbing to me.
Obviously you wouldn't want to date an alien-looking uggo then.
quote:Originally posted by Amanecer: While it may be true that nobody thinks, "I want somebody ugly." People do tend to gravitate towards and feel most comfortable around people that look similar.
I'll buy that. So if you feel that you're in the top 20% of attractive people, it makes sense that you'd want to limit your dating pool to people in the same level of attractiveness.
Maybe it's purely altruistic reasons. The hotties don't want to date us average looking folks, and make us feel uncomfortable.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote:Originally posted by katharina: Same thing. If the pretty woman is attracted to and made to feel safe and loved by someone who can take care of her in a grand manner and the rich guy is honest about only desiring model-ly women, then I think the site is a great idea that will enable them to find each other. Not shallow.
If you don't consider only being willing to date millionaires or model-ly women shallow, then I have to wonder if that word means the same thing to both of us, because I'm really failing to grock how it could not be shallow.
Posted by El JT de Spang (Member # 7742) on :
quote:Originally posted by Amanecer: While it may be true that nobody thinks, "I want somebody ugly." People do tend to gravitate towards and feel most comfortable around people that look similar.
It's been my experience that it's not so much that you gravitate towards people that are a similar level of attractiveness as you are, it's that you gravitate towards people who are a similar level of attractiveness as you think you are. It's partially a self-esteem thing.
If you're insecure and average-looking, dating a beautiful person® would probably drive you to depression.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote:you can't help who you're attracted to and who you're not.
I disagree. I think that that we can have a large amount of control on what we like, don't like, what we're attracted to, and how we feel.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
I often wondered about that. For example, I had two friends in college who each would be about a 3 on an attractiveness scale who got together. I could never figure if they found each other attractive or if it was more like "Well, this is the best I can do."
Posted by Amanecer (Member # 4068) on :
quote:It's been my experience that it's not so much that you gravitate towards people that are a similar level of attractiveness as you are, it's that you gravitate towards people who are a similar level of attractiveness as you think you are. It's partially a self-esteem thing.
I absolutely agree. I think probably the majority of appearance is about how somebody perceives themselves. Clothes, hair, amount of time spent working out, and makeup (for girls) can turn anybody (barring disfigurement) from ugly to average.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
If Hollywood has taught me anything, it's that the only difference between an ugly and a head-turningly beautiful woman is glasses, clothes, and a makeover.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
quote:If you don't consider only being willing to date millionaires or model-ly women shallow, then I have to wonder if that word means the same thing to both of us, because I'm really failing to grock how it could not be shallow.
That's because my assessment only falls in the situations where the people are being completely honest about what makes them warm and fuzzy towards some person.
We disagree because I, unlike you I think, don't think that any honest desire for a characteristic is shallow. I think this because no one should have to force themself to like someone that simply doesn't do anything for them.
I think we've had this conversation before. I know I've had it with other people many times, usually when they were telling me I should like someone that I just flat out didn't. No matter how good someone sounds on paper, if you don't like being around them, there is nothing shallow about deciding to not be around them. No one should have to force themselves to fake an emotion.
Okay, scenario: The million dollar one.
What about the woman who wants to date someone wealthy grew up wealthy? Her family lives all over the world, and she wants to be able to see them. She absolutely loved her swanky private school and wants to be able to send her children. Her favorite hobby is yacht-racing and she wants to continue it. She wants to live in Manhatten because that's where she belongs to a number of organizations that only exist there, and she wants to be able to have a five-bedroom house because she also wants a large family and wants to see her husband at night instead of him spending his time commuting.
So, she wants someone from her background that understands her, shares her hobbies, will allow her to have a large family in her hometown, and she'll still be able to see her family. If she married someone lower-middle-class, none of that would happen. I don't think a desire to have a partner who understands her and wants the same life she does is shallow. I think everyone should have that.
Posted by ketchupqueen (Member # 6877) on :
quote:Originally posted by mr_porteiro_head: If Hollywood has taught me anything, it's that the only difference between an ugly and a head-turningly beautiful woman is glasses, clothes, and a makeover.
Yep, that's why I was prettier when my husband married me than I am now. (Of course, he would deny that.)
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
quote:I think that that we can have a large amount of control on what we like, don't like, what we're attracted to, and how we feel.
I notice that "who" we are attracted to isn't on the list.
I have heard this before, usually said to me in a dissaproving voice from someone who thought I was being too picky. I always want to ask that person if they had to talk themselves into loving their spouse. I wouldn't and won't, because it's a horrible question, but it's a question that naturally follows from what I think is a horrible suggestion. Good heavens, no one should have to settle.
Posted by The Pixiest (Member # 1863) on :
mph: Personally, I wouldn't want someone spectacularly gorgeous because I would feel like a lump of dog dirt next to her.
(and there is no makeover that could save me)
Posted by ElJay (Member # 6358) on :
quote:Originally posted by katharina: Okay, scenario: The million dollar one.
While I don't disagree with you that it is possible for people to have those priorities without being shallow, I do feel the need to point out that the woman in your scenario could have the life you're describing if she married a man from a lower-class/income background if she put that private school education to work and got a high paying job herself.
Just 'cause I think it's nice to remember that the man doesn't have to be automatically considered the breadwinner in that situation.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
I know. I tried to make it gender-neutral, but it was awkward. Too many "them"s.
I consoled myself with this solution by saying it is one possible scenario, not necessarily the representative scenario.
ETA: Also, for that life, a million dollars is not going to cut it.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote:Originally posted by katharina: [QB]
quote:I think that that we can have a large amount of control on what we like, don't like, what we're attracted to, and how we feel.
I notice that "who" we are attracted to isn't on the list.
You are correct. People are far more than the sums of their qualities.
I haven't been talking about being attracted or not to specific individuals, but about disqualifying whole swathes of the population based on personal criteria. Some of those criteria are, IMO, good and useful, while others are pretty darn shallow.
quote:Good heavens, no one should have to settle.
Whereas I think that everybody has to settle in just about every aspect of their lives. It's part of the mortal condition.
Posted by ElJay (Member # 6358) on :
*grin* Fair enough.
And definitely not, for the million$.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:What about the site I mentioned where the men have to have at least $1 million a year income and the women have extremely high beauty requirements?
There is a matchmaking service - often advertised in in-flight magazines - that pretty much states this as the requirement, although they also do the reverse for rich women looking for trophy husbands.
It's not a dating site, but an actual brokerage arrangement designed to set up long-term relationships, and it's pretty frank about it.
Posted by Amanecer (Member # 4068) on :
quote:I often wondered about that. For example, I had two friends in college who each would be about a 3 on an attractiveness scale who got together. I could never figure if they found each other attractive or if it was more like "Well, this is the best I can do."
I think the more emotionally attracted to somebody you are, the more physically attractive they become to you.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote:I always want to ask that person if they had to talk themselves into loving their spouse.
In some ways, yes. At some times, yes.
If that's called "settling", then settling was one of the best things I've ever done.
I don't see how that's avoidable when dealing with actual human beings instead of Platonic ideals.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
quote:Originally posted by Amanecer:
quote:I often wondered about that. For example, I had two friends in college who each would be about a 3 on an attractiveness scale who got together. I could never figure if they found each other attractive or if it was more like "Well, this is the best I can do."
I think the more emotionally attracted to somebody you are, the more physically attractive they become to you.
I have found this to be incredibly true. I have also discovered that people who are much more physically attractive than I am are not infrequently attracted to me. I have discovered that being "comfortable in your skin" has much less to do with what one actually looks like than one might assume. Same goes even more so for being "good" in bed.
And I was attracted to the man with whom I am in love before I got a good look at him. Of course, he is beautiful, but I didn't know that.
And, while I don't think he finds me objectively beautiful I have no doubt that he wants me.
Posted by ketchupqueen (Member # 6877) on :
quote:And I was attracted to the man with whom I am in love before I got a good look at him. Of course, he is beautiful, but I didn't know that.
Ditto.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote:I think the more emotionally attracted to somebody you are, the more physically attractive they become to you.
I don't think this is true for everybody.
In fact, I think that one of the unspoken assumptions in this thread has been that if this isn't true for you, it means you're shallow.
I'm not sure I agree with that, but I may have been unthinkingly assuming it.
Posted by pH (Member # 1350) on :
quote:Originally posted by mr_porteiro_head:
quote:I think the more emotionally attracted to somebody you are, the more physically attractive they become to you.
I definitely don't think it's true for everybody. I find myself largely agreeing with kat on this thread. I mean, okay, so you say you want someone intelligent. How is that any less shallow than wanting someone you find physically attractive?
-pH
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
Um, you've misquoted that. I'm not the one that said that; I was responding to it.
And to answer your question: the assumption is that being intelligent is more important/better than being really really goodlooking.
Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
quote:I always want to ask that person if they had to talk themselves into loving their spouse. I wouldn't and won't, because it's a horrible question, but it's a question that naturally follows from what I think is a horrible suggestion. Good heavens, no one should have to settle.
I find this mindset troubling. It seems to assume that the feeling of love should always come effortlessly. When you are infatuated, it does. But infatuation doesn't last. And when such a person with such expectations realizes this, they will have a lot of trouble being happy in their marriage because it will never again fulfill their expectations until they let go of some of them. Many people talk about how you have to "work" at marriage to make it last, and this (I think) is largely what they are talking about.
Makes me feel like posting as a landmark a post I made on another forum. The desire to do so has been bouncing around in my head for awhile now despite my lack of activity on the fora.
Posted by Boris (Member # 6935) on :
My biggest problem with this site is the way it advertises itself.
quote: Attractive, fit singles like you deserve an above average dating pool and the leading online dating sites just don’t meet that standard.
The general idea behind this site is this, I submit 3 photos of myself, with one being a full body shot. Then, a group of people decides whether or not I'm hot enough to be listed on the site. From that point, I then have to maintain my "hot" status while other members of this site (as they browse) rate my appearance on a 1-10 scale. If I drop below an 8, I'm out. For some reason, that just reminds me of junior high.
Now, I'm not going to say that looks don't matter to me. They do. But I realize that looks fade over time, and judging someone solely on their looks is always going to be a bad idea in the long run. There have been a number of girls that I found incredibly attractive, but never even tried to ask out because I knew there was no way I'd be able to have more than a 5 minute conversation with them (Usually after a 2 minute conversation that involves them talking about pop culture garbage).
I'll admit, I'm being a little shallow myself in assuming that anyone who actually uses this site is likely to be the kind of person who spends 3 hours a day in front of the mirror preening instead of, say, reading a book or doing something intellectually stimulating. But that was my first impression. I guess I'm just one of those downtrodden geeks who got ridiculed as a child (I'm still pretty good looking, though. At least that's what my mom says )
A better idea for this type of site is one that allows members to anonymously rate one another on things like quality of date (if people have been on a date with one another), sense of humor, intelligence, friendliness, etc.
Posted by erosomniac (Member # 6834) on :
quote:Originally posted by pH: I definitely don't think it's true for everybody. I find myself largely agreeing with kat on this thread. I mean, okay, so you say you want someone intelligent. How is that any less shallow than wanting someone you find physically attractive?
-pH
It's no different, but shallow by definition refers to exterior beauty. There's just no readily equivilant pejorative for preferring intelligent people.
Posted by Boris (Member # 6935) on :
I'm going with ero on that one. My understanding of shallow has always been that it meant "Lacking emotional or intellectual depth"
Posted by pH (Member # 1350) on :
See, I wouldn't use a site like that, but not because I don't find physical attractiveness important. I feel that if I'm willing to devote time/effort to my appearance, I'm probably going to get along better with someone who does the same.
But not someone who takes longer doing his hair than I do.
-pH
Posted by Boris (Member # 6935) on :
Yeah. I wouldn't be interested in a guy that takes longer doing his hair than I do either Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
Several people in this thread have asked what is the difference between a criteria for physical attractiveness and a criteria for religious and cultural background (I believe most if not all race issues are really culture issues.) And to me the difference is huge.
People who share religious and cultural backgrounds are more likely to have a lot in common, particularly things that they value most in life, their frame of reference, their experiences, their paradigms. It isn't just about what will attract them to someone, but how compatible they will be if they try to make something work together. Once they have that large criteria out of the way, they look for someone they are actually attracted to and enjoy.
Could I be attracted to and enjoy being in a relationship with someone who is not LDS? Absolutely! I'm sure their are many out there! Does being Mormon automatically make a guy attractive to me? Heck no! But for my own reasons, I choose not to build a life with someone who differs from me on that point.
What I'm saying is, websites that cut out people not of your religion/culture have less to do with what attracts you and far more to do with the practical aspects of a life you might build together. A site that is about how hot you are seems directly related to what you actually find attractive in the opposite sex. I'm not commenting on the rightness or wrongness, just pointing out the difference as I see it.
Posted by ClaudiaTherese (Member # 923) on :
quote:Originally posted by katharina: No matter how good someone sounds on paper, if you don't like being around them, there is nothing shallow about deciding to not be around them. No one should have to force themselves to fake an emotion.
I don't think one necessarily follows from the other.
A person could be judged as shallow and still not be expected or required to fake emotions. The latter is a separate issue. Better to be shallow and not fake emotions than be shallow and fake emotions.
That's because the faking of emotions wouldn't make someone not shallow. It would just make them a faker, as well as being shallow.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
When I grow up, I wanna be bev. Or maybe mph. Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
Awwwww. Posted by foundling (Member # 6348) on :
I'd be interested to know what peoples standards of "ugly" actually are. Standards of beauty have been pretty well established in most people by the age of, like, 10. But standards of what we find ugly seem to be much more subjective.
I, personally, am actually one of those people who sees the ugliest person in the room and is immediately interested. When I was single, I WOULD go up to them and start flirting. I do this because, almost invariably, that ugly person is the nicest, most empathetic, interesting, sweet person in the room. Physical ugliness teaches most who are afflicted with it to rely to a much higher degree on other attractive traits to get by in this world. They also seem much more aware of the people around them, and are therefore more interesting to talk to. The "beautiful", or even average, people just dont seem to have as many of these characteristics, and I'm not nearly as automatically interested in spending time with them.
Now, the qualifiers for those statements abound, of course. There are beautiful people in my life who exhibit just as much internal beauty as external(my boyfriend being one of them), and there are ugly people who are as ugly on the inside as they are on the outside. All I'm saying is that, when walking into a room full of people, I'm drawn to and attracted to the unusual and different. Be it stunningly ugly, amazingly pretty, really freaking weird... I like those kind of people for what they can offer me.
Which is, of course, just as shallow and selfish as anything else.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
I'm a distant second, I can tell. Posted by pH (Member # 1350) on :
quote:Originally posted by foundling: I'd be interested to know what peoples standards of "ugly" actually are. Standards of beauty have been pretty well established in most people by the age of, like, 10. But standards of what we find ugly seem to be much more subjective.
See...I pretty much tend to focus on the beautiful parts of people, I guess. It would take a lot for me to say that someone was ugly.
Edit: Looking through a couple of the guys on that site, I'd say they're attractive. But I, personally, am not attracted to most of them. Just like I understand that Brad Pitt is attractive, but I, personally, am not attracted to him.
-pH
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote:Originally posted by mr_porteiro_head: I'm a distant second, I can tell.
Well . . . yeah. But it's mostly because of the overly-literal thing. Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Also, "hot" fades. Smart fades, too, sometimes, but "hot" is pretty much guaranteed. How scary that must be for a person in a relationship with someone who mightn't want them if they stopped being above an eight.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
Claudia Therese, people who ARE only interested in pretty people are, by being called shallow, being told they are not as <insert positive term here> as they would be if they were attracted to people even if they weren't pretty.
People like to be good, and they like to think of themselves as good. Calling someone shallow is the first step to/just like shaming someone into acting differently. In order those who prefer pretty people to act differently, they'd have to fake an attraction.
That's a pretty terrible thing to ask of someone when it is their dating life. Hiring practices, sure. Suck it up, hiring managers and stop juding on looks. But dating? One's love life? It is wrong to tell someone what they "should" look for in a partner.
Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
So many of our qualities are enriched with age. Looks, not so much. It just isn't a good horse to put your money on, IMHO, not if you're looking for something that lasts.
Posted by pH (Member # 1350) on :
Who says you can't find a hot person and discover that he is also entertaining/intelligent/kind/[insert non-physical quality here]?
-pH
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
And it's not any harder to love a rich man.
*sigh*
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
It is possible for someone to be both hot and a good idea.
Having looks as one of the criteria does not mean it is the only criteria, anymore than having Mormon as a criteria means it is the only criteria.
Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
quote:People like to be good, and they like to think of themselves as good. Calling someone shallow is the first step to/just like shaming someone into acting differently. In order those who prefer pretty people to act differently, they'd have to fake an attraction.
I dunno, shame is used pretty universally in human society from childhood on up to redirect our natural desires and inclinations into what they "ought" to be. You are sexually attracted to children? Well, you shouldn't be. Work to overcome it, even if it is hard.
OK, so that is an unfair one to pull out. But really, so many of our "natural" feelings are inappropriate and harmful in a multitude of ways. If putting too much emphasis on looks is harmful in someway, what is wrong with working to overcome that?
And I will agree that many people use shame in a harmful and unhealthy way. But it doesn't have to be that way.
Edit: If someone close to me were consistently attracted to people that were bad for them (or bad for others) in some way, I might encourage them to change their desires. Changing your desires isn't easy, but it is possible. (In answer to the assertion that it is wrong to tell someone who to be attracted to.)
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
Yes, it is unfair. That's really a stretch, and a highly offensive one.
If you have to distort my argument so much it resembles pedophilia in order to counter it, I think you don't have a point.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote:Originally posted by rivka:
quote:Originally posted by mr_porteiro_head: I'm a distant second, I can tell.
Well . . . yeah. But it's mostly because of the overly-literal thing.
I knew that would get me in trouble some day. Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
Your point is that you can't change what you desire and it is wrong to tell someone to change their desires. I disagree and I stated why.
Posted by pH (Member # 1350) on :
It's completely unfair and a bit disturbing to compare wanting to date hot people to pedophilia.
-pH
Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
pH, out of curiosity, why?
Posted by pH (Member # 1350) on :
Perhaps because they aren't anything close to equivalent desires. Nor do they have equivalent consequences.
-pH
Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
I agree that the consequences are vastly different. I'm not sure I agree with the first point.
Posted by erosomniac (Member # 6834) on :
quote:Originally posted by beverly: Several people in this thread have asked what is the difference between a criteria for physical attractiveness and a criteria for religious and cultural background (I believe most if not all race issues are really culture issues.) And to me the difference is huge.
People who share religious and cultural backgrounds are more likely to have a lot in common, particularly things that they value most in life, their frame of reference, their experiences, their paradigms. It isn't just about what will attract them to someone, but how compatible they will be if they try to make something work together. Once they have that large criteria out of the way, they look for someone they are actually attracted to and enjoy.
Could I be attracted to and enjoy being in a relationship with someone who is not LDS? Absolutely! I'm sure their are many out there! Does being Mormon automatically make a guy attractive to me? Heck no! But for my own reasons, I choose not to build a life with someone who differs from me on that point.
What I'm saying is, websites that cut out people not of your religion/culture have less to do with what attracts you and far more to do with the practical aspects of a life you might build together. A site that is about how hot you are seems directly related to what you actually find attractive in the opposite sex. I'm not commenting on the rightness or wrongness, just pointing out the difference as I see it.
I disagree, but I think the religious find it difficult to look at it otherwise.
Posted by MightyCow (Member # 9253) on :
quote:Originally posted by beverly: pH, out of curiosity, why?
It disturbs me if you seriously have to ask that question.
Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
:sigh: I hate being misunderstood.
I wanted the people here to think beyond the knee-jerk reaction. I know I haven't been around much lately, but I would hope that most here would know me well enough to look for other meaning in what I am saying than to be disturbed. But since it seems given that I will be misunderstood, here was my thought process.
Kat thinks it is wrong to tell someone who to be attracted to, period. So I thought to myself, I disagree. How can I explain why? Hmm. I will come up with an example that we can both agree with. There are a wide variety of POVs on this board, but I figured pedophilia is one that we could ALL agree on. So, if there are times when it *is* appropriate to tell someone not to be attracted to someone, maybe there is a wide range of spectrum where it might be appropriate to encourage someone to change their desires.
I don't want to tell someone that physical attractiveness is not important, but if that is the most important thing to them, I think that is harmful to themselves, others, and society at large and I am not ashamed to tell them that they ought to be ashamed. Kat says nothing in attraction is shallow. I think attraction can be not just shallow but evil. That is why I brought up pedophilia.
Clear?
Posted by MightyCow (Member # 9253) on :
Yeah, I get what you're saying, but it's such an overblown example that it approaches being meaningless. Worse, the fact that it's such a disturbing comparison distracts so much from the point you're trying to make, that it's less than meaningless, because it carries way too much baggage.
Posted by Shigosei (Member # 3831) on :
I doubt that humans have a significant amount of control over who we find attractive. We most certainly have a choice over whether we feed or starve an attraction and whether or not we act on it. However, I don't consider myself capable of consciously choosing to become attracted to someone. I think it would be an amazingly stupid idea to attempt a romantic relationship with someone I'm not attracted to. Likewise, I'm not certain that attempting to change the category of people or attributes that I'm attracted to is a good idea. In all likelihood, I'd merely convince myself that I had changed, get into a relationship, and find myself becoming more and more uncomfortable around that person. That would harm not only me, but the other person as well.
If I can't find someone to whom I am attracted and who is attracted to me, better to be single than to attempt a relationship with someone I'm not really interested in.
Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
My point: attraction can be evil, so why can't attraction also be shallow? I think it is a perfectly appropriate example of how attraction can be a bad thing. Evil *is* disturbing.
Some milder examples: being attracted to abusive people, being attracted to someone who needs to be "fixed", being attracted to someone who is married to someone else. Each of these are cases where I would have no problem telling someone to change their desires, hard though it might be.
Shigosei: I believe that by feeding or starving our desires we are, in fact, changing them. We may not be able to eliminate them entirely, but we can certainly influence them.
I agree that we should be with someone that we are attracted to, since forcing yourself to be attracted to someone is so difficult, and you don't need that extra strain with all that is required to make a relationship work. Hopefully we are attracted to a wide enough variety of people that we can avoid those that are overly problematic. All too often I have found that where my heart alone would lead me was not the wisest place to go. I try my best to make sure my head rules my heart.
Posted by Amanecer (Member # 4068) on :
I like it when you post. You always have insightful things to say.
Posted by Shigosei (Member # 3831) on :
Yeah, I agree those are negative things to be attracted to. If the lack of those are "deal-breakers," though, in my opinion it's better to simply remain single than to try to force yourself to be attracted to someone who is not naturally attractive to you.
If you only tend to be attracted to those attributes, though, perhaps it's a good idea to try to change. On the other hand, I don't think attraction to people who fit the stereotype of physical beauty is necessarily wrong, though judging a potential date/mate solely on that is rather shallow (and foolish), in my opinion. But I'm not going to reject someone just because he is good-looking just so that I won't be shallow.
Posted by MightyCow (Member # 9253) on :
beverly: All those things are clearly unhealthy, where I don't think there is anything inherently unhealthy with being attracted to attractive people.
It's an unfair comparison, so I don't think it makes a real point. It's unhealthy to want to stab yourself in the stomach with a sharp knife. It's not unhealthy to want to have a ruptured appendix removed. So what?
The two are only superficially related, and you can't draw any conclusions about the rightness, utility, or health of one by comparing it to the other. Similarly, saying that wanting to have sex with children is related in any meaningful way to wanting to date attractive people is a worthless comparison.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
Taking it to a nonsensical extreme does not invalidate what I said. I think it is ridiculous that it is even being tried.
The conversation is now a farce.
quote:I agree that we should be with someone that we are attracted to, since forcing yourself to be attracted to someone is so difficult, and you don't need that extra strain with all that is required to make a relationship work.
This was my point in the first place.
I also think that if someone consistently desires a standard of beauty which no one he or she has a chance to date will meet, then they'll change on their own when wanting someone at all is stronger than their desire to date supermodels.
The idea that people should change their desires to fit some egalitarian standard (I'm leaving out the ridiculous extremes of that argument) is predicated on the idea that people HAVE to be with SOMEONE.
It is based on the idea that setting is better than being single. I don't think it is. In fact, I think settling when unhappy is about the dumbest thing someone can do. Not only are you unhappy, but you've cut off your chance to find someone who will make you happy. And it is bad for the other person. That would suck to be the person someone settled for.
Relationships are enough work in the first place without someone only there because they were shamed into it. That sounds like a fantastic recipe for resentment, and the person who shamed them into it was being manipulative with someone else's life. I think it's a sad situation all around and encouraging it is destructive.
[ March 24, 2007, 08:16 AM: Message edited by: katharina ]
Posted by ElJay (Member # 6358) on :
Amen.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote: It's unhealthy to want to stab yourself in the stomach with a sharp knife. It's not unhealthy to want to have a ruptured appendix removed. So what?
So, it is not universally wrong to tell someone that a knife in the gut will help them.
quote:The conversation is now a farce.
I think that a terribly unfair thing to say. Beverly had a good point which she unfortunately communicated in a way which would produce a negative response from almost anybody.
As I've said elsewhere, it's practically impossible to make a constructive point with an analogy that includes, or seems to include something along the lines of "OK, so you're like a racist/pedophile/Nazi". I know I don't respond well when I am compared in such manner.
But even though she made it in a nonconstructive manner, she had a very good point: some desires and attractions are better than others, and in some situations, it is good and proper to try to change who and what you are attracted to.
quote:Relationships are enough work in the first place without someone only there because they were shamed into it.
That seems to carry with it the assumption that the person didn't change what they like or are attracted to, but instead faked it and got into relationships despite a lack of attraction.
But that's not what Beverly was saying at all. She was talking about actually changing what you're attracted to.
If I'm understanding you correctly you believe it's impossible to change what you're attracted to, and since it's impossible, it will never work and will therefore cause you misery, it is wrong to ask people to do so. I think what you say makes sense if your assumption that we cannot change our attractions is correct.
I feel very strongly that it is not correct for all people, because it's not correct for me. I know that I have (or at the very least, have had in the past) the ability to influence and change what I like and am attracted to.
From what you've said, you seem to have an equally strong conviction that it's impossible for people to do so, and it seems to stem from your personal experiences.
But there need be no contraction between the two. People are different. I am perfectly willing to consider the idea that while what I said it may apply and work for some people (like me), it simply doesn't apply to others.
Posted by steven (Member # 8099) on :
Here's what I see: that it's OK to settle, provided that you know what you're doing. I also think a lot of this is situational/personal.
Settling for a woman whose voice you can't stand? Eh, maybe not for me, but very OK for a deaf man. Particularly if she is gorgeous, kind, smart, funny, has friends and family that love you/are fun, etc.
I mean, perhaps. What do you folken think? You're all making good points.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
I agree with Kat that settling for someone who you can't be happy with is a bad idea.
I don't think that settling by changing what you require to be happy is a bad idea. -OR- I don't think it is settling to change what you require to be happy with someone.
Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
Kat, I apologize for being shocking. That was not my intention. My intention was to find common ground, and it was the first thing that leapt to mind. I still believe that there are times when it is appropriate to disapprove of a person's desires and that it is appropriate for that individual to try and change themselves and what they want.
In a large part I agree with what people are saying here. You *should* seek out someone you are both attracted to and compatible with. Though I think that since people are human and fallible, there will always be things we find unattractive/dislike in our partner, and that is *not* the same as settling. It's a tough balance to strike, and it is a very personal thing. No one can make that decision for you.
Mighty Cow: You will notice that I never anywhere actually said it is unhealthy to be attracted to attractive people.
Posted by pH (Member # 1350) on :
quote:Originally posted by mr_porteiro_head: I agree with Kat that settling for someone who you can't be happy with is a bad idea.
I don't think that settling by changing what you require to be happy is a bad idea. -OR- I don't think it is settling to change what you require to be happy with someone.
I think you can only actively change what you require if you have set requirements in the first place. How many people do have a set list of things that they must have?
Also, if someone wants to be physically attracted to the person he/she is with, I don't see how one can or should change that.
-pH
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
What happens, though, when people gain weight, get wrinkled, start to sag, etc.? Pysical attractiveness is bound to fade. Other things may change, too, but our bodies will change. For example, my sister gained weight when she had her first child - and that was the end of her marriage. For her husband, physical attractiveness was a necessary condition for their relationship. This is only one example of why I think that having physical beauty isn't the best criterion to use.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
My a good friend of mine is currently in a relationship that isn't going anywhere. She really isn't physically attracted to him at all, but she's still with him because they share a lot of non-sexual things in common, like movies, music, etc, the things you talk about and what not.
He, on the other hand, is totally in love with her. He's incredibly attracted to her, finds her fascinating, the whole shebang. But she's hesitant to end the relationship because A. It will crush him and B. Fear of being alone.
I've told her multiple times to end it, as I think it's unfair to him, to be in a relationship where feelings aren't reciprocated, and I think it's a poster child relationship for why people shouldn't get together when there's no romantic spark.
If you aren't attracted, you can't MAKE yourself be attracted to someone. In that sense, I think many of us are hardwired to be shallow, in the modern sense of the word. I don't expect girls that I date to be universally hot, but a prerequisite for my dating them is that I at least be attracted to them, otherwise it's going to be a very, very awkward relationship.
I also happen to think that in a lasting relationship, there needs to be a body/mind/soul connection. Fiery attraction is just step one, if there's no connection on a deeper level after that, I think it's just as doomed to fail, but you have to have the first building blocks before you can make anything out of it. But I don't call that shallow, to be honest. If I don't date someone I am really not attracted to I'm not shallow, I'm honest. And do you really want to be that person that someone decided to date becuase you were their last option? or because they took pity on you? That, to me, would be far more devastating than not getting the date in the first place.
I'm starting to lose my hair a bit (Seriously, being 22 sucks), and my brother and his girlfriend were talking the other day about trying to set me up with someone (actulally, ALL my friends seem to be talking about that these days) but my brother jokingly said that she doesn't like bald guys. So I said "if that's the only thing that stops us from dating, then it's good to know that know before we actually waste our time on a date."
If the girl isn't attracted to me, then off she goes, I don't really care. I'd rather her just be on her way than try to swallow a false attraction to make me feel better. Sometimes nature knows better than we do.
Posted by pfresh85 (Member # 8085) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: I'm starting to lose my hair a bit (Seriously, being 22 sucks), and my brother and his girlfriend were talking the other day about trying to set me up with someone (actulally, ALL my friends seem to be talking about that these days) but my brother jokingly said that she doesn't like bald guys. So I said "if that's the only thing that stops us from dating, then it's good to know that know before we actually waste our time on a date."
I'm glad to hear I'm not the only 22 year old starting to lose his hair (not that I'm happy that it's happening to either of us, but I'm just glad I'm not the only one in this boat). It's no fun. One would hope that wouldn't be the deciding factor for a girl wanting to date you though. Of course maybe for some it is. *shrugs*
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
I've got to say that it IS possible to learn to find people attractive. And, moreover, that settling is ultimately inevitable; if you don't learn to "settle," any long-term relationship is doomed. Period.
Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
quote:I'm starting to lose my hair a bit (Seriously, being 22 sucks), and my brother and his girlfriend were talking the other day about trying to set me up with someone (actulally, ALL my friends seem to be talking about that these days) but my brother jokingly said that she doesn't like bald guys. So I said "if that's the only thing that stops us from dating, then it's good to know that know before we actually waste our time on a date."
Before dating Porter, I hated bodily hairiness in men. Bleaugh. But Porter converted me to hairiness. I find it very sexy in him.
For me what I find physically attractive is not set in stone and is very much influenced by the soul-connection. I wish it were so for everyone, because I think who you are is so much more meaningful and important than how you look. Even the beautiful won't be beautiful forever. What then?
Posted by Flaming Toad on a Stick (Member # 9302) on :
quote:Originally posted by pfresh85:
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: I'm starting to lose my hair a bit (Seriously, being 22 sucks), and my brother and his girlfriend were talking the other day about trying to set me up with someone (actulally, ALL my friends seem to be talking about that these days) but my brother jokingly said that she doesn't like bald guys. So I said "if that's the only thing that stops us from dating, then it's good to know that know before we actually waste our time on a date."
I'm glad to hear I'm not the only 22 year old starting to lose his hair (not that I'm happy that it's happening to either of us, but I'm just glad I'm not the only one in this boat). It's no fun. One would hope that wouldn't be the deciding factor for a girl wanting to date you though. Of course maybe for some it is. *shrugs*
I'm 17. I've caught some gray hairs. My life is over. And Lyrhawn, what does 'actulally' actually mean?[/nazi]
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
I'm curious: how many of the people who think attractiveness cannot be learned are married?
Posted by pfresh85 (Member # 8085) on :
I'd take gray over bald any day. Still, it's no big deal. It's life. Posted by pH (Member # 1350) on :
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson: I'm curious: how many of the people who think attractiveness cannot be learned are married?
Define this cannot be learned part. I don't have a set list of features required for attractiveness. But I do absolutely want a physical attraction and a spark.
-pH
Posted by ClaudiaTherese (Member # 923) on :
quote:Originally posted by katharina: Claudia Therese, people who ARE only interested in pretty people are, by being called shallow, being told they are not as <insert positive term here> as they would be if they were attracted to people even if they weren't pretty. People like to be good, and they like to think of themselves as good. Calling someone shallow is the first step to/just like shaming someone into acting differently. In order those who prefer pretty people to act differently, they'd have to fake an attraction.[italics added]
But the bar for "good" doesn't have to be lower to make it easier to be good. That demeans both goodness and those striving for it.
I wouldn't use the same analogy as beverly, but I think she does have the right of it. It doesn't seem reasonable not to disapprove of others at all (even if we may say the expression of that disapproval should be limited in time and place) just because they might feel they have to fake change.
quote:That's a pretty terrible thing to ask of someone when it is their dating life. Hiring practices, sure. Suck it up, hiring managers and stop juding on looks. But dating? One's love life? It is wrong to tell someone what they "should" look for in a partner. [italics added]
But they aren't being asked to fake it. They aren't even being asked to not be shallow. If shallowness is something that person cares about, then they are being asked to grow as a person and not be shallow any more. Nothing to do with faking.
Although, I suppose if the only way a person could do it is by faking, then they should consider themselves being asked to develop themselves to the point where they don't have to fake it.
I can see your complaint if we value known faking as well as non-shallowness; but we don't. We look down on people who are thought to be faking it, too. Both are negatives -- it isn't an either/or. It is a mark of development as a person to grow past both of those responses.
Posted by ClaudiaTherese (Member # 923) on :
quote:Originally posted by pH: It's completely unfair and a bit disturbing to compare wanting to date hot people to pedophilia.
-pH
I don't think beverly is comparing the content of the category "pedophelia" to the content of the category "wanting to date hot people." I think she is comparing how those classes of characterization work and function in a met-analysis.
Sort of like comparing the general category of "classes in mathematics" to "classes in French literature" when you are talking about how easy or difficult it is to enroll at a particular college. You aren't saying anything like "mathematics = French literature" -- the comparison is at a higher level than content.
----
A more palatable analogy might be trustworthiness. Being trustworthy in the sense of not lying and carrying through on promises you have made is a good thing. In our culture, we generally approve of trustworthy people and disapprove of nontrustworthy people.
Now, this may make nontrustworthy people feel bad, and to get social approval, they may pretend to be trustworthy -- such as by claiming that they would never break a promise, or expressing disapproval of people who cheat on their taxes (despite doing it routinely themselves), etc. But that, too, is a bad thing. That inauthenticity is also a negative quality. However, the onus is on those who do it to avoid doing bad things, not on other people to stop disapproving of untrustworthiness.
---
Of note, I am not saying that shallow people are nontrustworthy people. I am suggesting that the way we view and act towards shallow people is similar in relevant ways (re: this discussion) to how we view and act towards nontrustworthy people, and that if one objects to the former, the same objection should hold for the latter.
That is not an equivalence of content of the classes. That is a claim to equivalence of how we view such classes in general.
[ March 24, 2007, 06:54 PM: Message edited by: ClaudiaTherese ]
Posted by ClaudiaTherese (Member # 923) on :
My take on the internet dating site originally referenced: I do think it's a shallow (in the typical meaning of the word) site and probably more heavily populated with shallow people than most. About the people themselves, I don't really care, other than to note that they probably aren't people I'd be interested in spending much time with. There might be exceptions, but as a general rule, I think it's pretty true.
But I don't think the site should be shut down, or that the people should change to please me, or anything of the sort. I highly doubt my opinion would matter to anyone posting there one whit -- and that's fine.
Edited to add: And to some extent, this is a matter of degree. Shallowness isn't an all-or-none sort of thing; people can be more or less shallow. And I don't think less of people for being attracted to whatever it is that they are attracted to.
I do, however, think it is a mark of growth as a person to be creative in striving to find more ways to look kindly on others and extend one's potential scope of mates, rather than to deliberately narrow it down.
[ March 24, 2007, 07:08 PM: Message edited by: ClaudiaTherese ]
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Don't get me wrong; I do think that a sexual "spark" is a vital element in a romantic relationship. I am deeply grateful that for many people, this spark is not dependent on an objective standard of physical beauty.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote:Originally posted by ClaudiaTherese: My take on the internet dating site originally referenced: I do think it's a shallow (in the typical meaning of the word) site and probably more heavily populated with shallow people than most. About the people themselves, I don't really care, other than to note that they probably aren't people I'd be interested in spending much time with. There might be exceptions, but as a general rule, I think it's pretty true.
But I don't think the site should be shut down, or that the people should change to please me, or anything of the sort. I highly doubt my opinion would matter to anyone posting there one whit -- and that's fine.
Precisely.
Posted by MightyCow (Member # 9253) on :
quote:Originally posted by ClaudiaTherese: My take on the internet dating site originally referenced: I do think it's a shallow (in the typical meaning of the word) site and probably more heavily populated with shallow people than most. About the people themselves, I don't really care, other than to note that they probably aren't people I'd be interested in spending much time with.
I'll be honest, I looked at the pictures of the people on the site and though that they looked uppity, self-important, and probably more interested in partying or looking good than a lot of things I might find important.
Then I felt bad, because I realized that it was much more shallow of me to make snap judgments about people on a dating site for all attractive people than it is for them to be honest about wanting to date an attractive person.
My question is, why do we think it's shallow to want to date a physicaly attractive person? Certainly all of us have SOME standards of physical beauty which we look for in a mate. Why do we so easily believe that OUR personal level of those standards is just right, but anyone with a more specific set of standards is shallow?
Further, why are we jumping to so many conclusions about the people on this site? We want to assume that they're only interested in looks, when we have no evidence that they don't spend hours emailing each other to get the personal details before they ever go on a date.
Bottom line is, they're people too. We do ourselves a disservice to stereotype them because they have a high level of what would commonly be accepted as physical attractiveness.
Maybe they're just tired of dating people with our attitudes, and have fled to a dating site where they know they won't be pre-judged by their beauty, where the person on the other side of the screen just accepts their attractiveness at face value, and is willing to dig deeper before writing them off as shallow and uninteresting.
Posted by ClaudiaTherese (Member # 923) on :
quote:Originally posted by MightyCow: Then I felt bad, because I realized that it was much more shallow of me to make snap judgments about people on a dating site for all attractive people than it is for them to be honest about wanting to date an attractive person.
I don't agree with you. [To clarify: in large part because I do not agree with your characterization of the situation. See below.]
quote:My question is, why do we think it's shallow to want to date a physicaly attractive person?
I don't. But I do think it is shallow to deliberately limit oneself to that.
This doesn't mean I think the person is morally ugly, or unredeemable, or vile -- just shallow.
quote:Certainly all of us have SOME standards of physical beauty which we look for in a mate. Why do we so easily believe that OUR personal level of those standards is just right, but anyone with a more specific set of standards is shallow?
To the extent that each of us limits ourselves in mate selection to a very narrow definition of attractiveness, deliberately reinforcing our own preconceptions of what we can be attracted to, we exhibit shallowness. This isn't a matter of religious obligation, of constraint placed externally -- it is a matter of saying to some extent, "gee, I like this, so this is all I will ever try."
I'm sure I am shallow to some extent. Maybe some great extent -- I'm always working on it. It makes me lesser than I could be.
quote:Further, why are we jumping to so many conclusions about the people on this site? We want to assume that they're only interested in looks, when we have no evidence that they don't spend hours emailing each other to get the personal details before they ever go on a date.
I don't assume they are only interested in looks. I do believe they are deliberately limiting what they will expose themselves to in a very narrow way, because, MightyCow, that is exactly what they are doing at this site.
You may have assumed more. I didn't.
quote:Bottom line is, they're people too.
Well, of course. Nobody has said or intimated otherwise.
And, like all of us, they exist on a range of various positive and negative qualities. Not an either/or, but a range. Not human/inhuman, but better or worse at being the best human beings they can be. And that, too, likely fluctuates over times, as it does for all of us.
quote:We do ourselves a disservice to stereotype them because they have a high level of what would commonly be accepted as physical attractiveness.
I do not judge them by their attractiveness. I do judge them by their deliberate choice not to seek out more ways of finding other people to be attractive in mate selection.
I don't think you are speaking to what I say; I think you might be speaking to what you think.
quote:Maybe they're just tired of dating people with our attitudes, and have fled to a dating site where they know they won't be pre-judged by their beauty, where the person on the other side of the screen just accepts their attractiveness at face value, and is willing to dig deeper before writing them off as shallow and uninteresting.
I don't judge them as shallow because of how they look. I judge them as shallow because of what they do.
And it's fine to avoid stretching oneself as a person. You're still shallow, though, to the extent that you narrow yourself down to feeding already-established appetites.
[ March 25, 2007, 11:26 AM: Message edited by: ClaudiaTherese ]
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
quote:I do judge them by their deliberate choice not to seek out more ways of finding other people to be attractive in mate selection.
How the heck do you know that they aren't doing that? Do you seriously think that these people aren't doing other things when looking for people to date? Maybe I was wrong and there really is a law that says that you can't register for more than one dating site.
I don't know, it sounds to me like you are not judging people, but instead judging simplistic two dimensional cut-outs that fit your prejudices.
edit:
quote: highly doubt my opinion would matter to anyone posting there one whit
And why do you think that? Do think that the people who are on that sight would value your opinion or even friendship based solely on how you look?
[ March 25, 2007, 02:37 PM: Message edited by: MrSquicky ]
Posted by Annie (Member # 295) on :
I have very little to contribute these days. I mostly just ingest. But I would like to say that the inside of my mind is pretty much a constant discussion between the Kat-like voice and the Porter/Bev-like voice.
Posted by Reshpeckobiggle (Member # 8947) on :
I applied to see if I would get accepted. I could use an ego boost. Of course, I may end up doing myself more harm than good if I get rejected.
Posted by MightyCow (Member # 9253) on :
I don't think it's a fair distinction to say that the people on this site are any more shallow than any other person. EVERYBODY who dates sets has standards of physical attractiveness, and ignores people who fall below their threshold. Many people do it subconsciously, these people choose to do it actively.
Posted by Reshpeckobiggle (Member # 8947) on :
I like to think that I tend to do it consciously, but then repress those inclinations so as not to be shallow. But then I only date pretty girls anyway.
P.S. Not recently. I haven't dated anyone in a year. I haven't found a pretty girl who is interesting and has character and personality who isn't already taken. I either need to lower my standards of attractivness or my standards of personality. I'm at an impasse.
Posted by pH (Member # 1350) on :
I just don't understand these conscious "standards." There are certain factors that make someone less desirable to me (ie. being a smoker), but when it comes to looks and personality, it's more of a "know it when I see it" kind of thing.
-pH
Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
quote:EVERYBODY who dates sets has standards of physical attractiveness, and ignores people who fall below their threshold. Many people do it subconsciously, these people choose to do it actively.
Not so. I once fell in love with a man that most people would say is rather unattractive, even ugly. I dated and very much enjoyed dating another man that the same could be said for. (Didn't actually fall in love with the second guy, just really enjoyed dating him.) At first glance, there was nothing in the way they looked to attract me. Both repulsed me on first impression.
But that impression changed when I saw the value of who they were. They each had a lot to offer in their own way and that beauty made them beautiful to me.
I once heard Porter say that the only reason a guy feels the need to have a pretty girlfriend is to impress others with how well he did for himself. While I think he is wrong (I think many men, and women, but more often men require a certain level of beauty in order to feel the attraction in the first place), it reveals a refreshing lack of dependence on physical beauty on his part.
Posted by MightyCow (Member # 9253) on :
Beverly, perhaps you are one of the very rare people for which there is no lower threshold for physical attractiveness.
I suppose another point I would make is, why is desiring a certain level of physical attraction seen as a negative, but desiring a certain level of say intellectual attraction or some common interest or trait is very deep.
Posted by ClaudiaTherese (Member # 923) on :
quote:Originally posted by MrSquicky: How the heck do you know that they aren't doing that? Do you seriously think that these people aren't doing other things when looking for people to date? Maybe I was wrong and there really is a law that says that you can't register for more than one dating site.
I have claimed, and continue to claim, that to the extent that these people are limiting themselves to being exposed to what they already find attractive -- which is being done explicitly at this site, regardless of what they may be doing elsewhere -- these people are behaving in a shallow way.
And also as I have said before, that isn't a black/white judgement: it is a matter of degree. And it is something of which a degree which I laid claim to, as well.
I don't think you are actually reading my posts.
quote:edit:
quote: highly doubt my opinion would matter to anyone posting there one whit
And why do you think that? Do think that the people who are on that sight would value your opinion or even friendship based solely on how you look?
*amused
No, and no. I just take it for granted that most people don't care what I think.
quote:Originally posted by MightyCow: [quote] I don't think it's a fair distinction to say that the people on this site are any more shallow than any other person. EVERYBODY who dates sets has standards of physical attractiveness, and ignores people who fall below their threshold. Many people do it subconsciously, these people choose to do it actively.
*sigh
I am not judging them for experiencing attraction to specific particulars, something which we all experience because, well, that is part of being human. Some things will kick more of a hindbrain response than others.
Whatever.
I am judging them to the extent (whatever that may be, although we have evidence that it is to some extent because, you see, that is what enrolling at this site means) that they are deliberately limiting themselves to the very narrow range of what they already have appetites for. Of note, this site also operates by kicking out those who are not judged sufficiently attractive by a sufficient number of other people -- not just what one happens to like oneself [which could be easily addressed by just requiring photographs, etc.]. That is a very narrow range, indeed.
They may be otherwise quite lovely people. They may, on the whole, be much less shallow than I. But to the extent they participate in this deliberate reinforcement of already-established inclinations, they are not extending themselves. That is shallow, to the extent it is practiced.
I would really love to hear you comment on what I am actually saying. If it is not interesting or relevant to you, that is fine, but I am not saying what you seem to be hearing. it is certainly not what you are responding to, if indeed you are trying to respond to me.
[ March 25, 2007, 09:01 PM: Message edited by: ClaudiaTherese ]
Posted by brojack17 (Member # 9189) on :
These people are only going to date the hottest of the other (or same) sex anyway. I say let them group together on-line. If someone joins this site, it shows what they are looking for.
Let them have it.
Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
quote:I suppose another point I would make is, why is desiring a certain level of physical attraction seen as a negative, but desiring a certain level of say intellectual attraction or some common interest or trait is very deep.
Possibly because attraction to beauty is more reflexive and instinctual while attraction to intelligence is more a matter of compatibility. I think the later is more important for a lasting relationship, therefore a more "worthy" impulse.
I imagine that many of the people who say they want an intelligent mate could easily be attracted to someone who isn't very intelligent. Maybe that person is otherwise quite charming. Seeking out specific character traits is often a matter of mind over instinct, knowing what is best for you. Goodness knows I have a tendency to be attracted to people who would be no good for me.
Posted by pH (Member # 1350) on :
But CT, deciding you don't want to date, say, someone who smokes/drinks rules out part of the population too.
-pH
Posted by Shigosei (Member # 3831) on :
To answer your question, Tom, I have doubts about whether attraction can be learned (well, whether *I* can learn it--I'm willing to acknowledge that it's likely others not only can, but have done it). I've never been in a serious relationship, let alone married. It seems to me that I can turn attraction off; I can't turn it on.
Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
But what is the value in cutting out less attractive people? Is beauty a virtue? I think there is good argument that there is value in cutting out those involved in unhealthy addictions.
Posted by ClaudiaTherese (Member # 923) on :
quote:Originally posted by MightyCow: I suppose another point I would make is, why is desiring a certain level of physical attraction seen as a negative, but desiring a certain level of say intellectual attraction or some common interest or trait is very deep.
I would say that to the extent that one deliberately limits oneself in mate selection to a narrow range of characteristics already known [to oneself] to be attractive [to oneself] -- be it by participating in this dating site, or by focusing on dating Mensa members, or only dating physicians -- then one is being shallow.***
We don't all have to be un-shallow all day, every day. There isn't a moral imperative to endeepify oneself, or to pretend to have been endeepified. But to the extent that we do [the former], I think we make more of ourselves, not less.
Please note: this is not a blindingly irrational injunction against any group of persons, 2-dimensional or otherwise. This is a claim about a degree of [a non-admirable but not necessarily indicative of general depravity of any sort] quality which all of us have, including me to some extent or another.
I had referenced an analogy to untrustworthiness previously. I have not been trustworthy in the past with regards to making it to appointments on time. I have worked on this and am much better about it than I was in Madison. However, in Madison, Tom once acknowledged that he allowed an automatic extra 1/2 hour to my estimated times of arrival.
He knew I was untrustworthy. He would even acknowledge it to my face. I still am quite secure that overall he still harbored (and still does) some affection and respect for me. He and his wife entrusted the care of their child to me on multiple occasions, after all.
But to the extent that I behaved this way, I was untrustworthy. Maybe not untrustworthy overall, certainly not in many other areas, but in this area, yes. And that was not one of my more admirable qualities. (Should this have come up in discussion with Sophie, if she were speaking much back then, I assume they would have said something like, "Yes, Aunt Sara can't be counted on to arrive on time, and we expect more of you than that. But she sure is a good person in other ways, isn't she? She loves you very much.") Still, they would hope for Sophie to do better than I did in this aspect. Moreover, I think Tom and Christy would be pleased and proud that I'm doing better in this respect. I sure am.
So I don't see why in heavens you would read my saying "this behavior is shallow" as making a blanket condemnation of a person. My head just doesn't work that way, and I find it puzzling and rather irritating to have it assigned to me. I wonder if we are coming from very different backgrounds and languages with reference to such situations -- and perhaps we are completely talking past one another.
----
Edited to add: *** [And perhaps a certain amount of such shallowness is inevitable, just in order to live in the world and not be overwhelmed by possibilities. *shrug Doesn't make a difference to my claim to admit this, and I'm open to the possibility. Similar real-world constraints on the limits to morality have made sense to me before.]
[ March 25, 2007, 10:07 PM: Message edited by: ClaudiaTherese ]
Posted by ClaudiaTherese (Member # 923) on :
quote:Originally posted by pH: But CT, deciding you don't want to date, say, someone who smokes/drinks rules out part of the population too.
-pH
I am not saying that all discrimination on basis of any and all characteristics is shallow.
I am saying that to the extent we limit ourselves to our already-established hindbrain jiggers, we are failing to make more of ourselves.
Are limited-scope hindbrain jiggers the only reason why people might chose not to date smokers or drinkers? That would be an odd hindbrain.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:Should this have come up in discussion with Sophie, if she were speaking much back then, I assume they would have said something like, "Yes, Aunt Sara can't be counted on to arrive on time, and we expect more of you than that. But she sure is a good person in other ways, isn't she? She loves you very much."
It depends on which one of us was saying this. If it were me, I'd say something more like, "Don't worry. Aunt Sara sometimes runs a bit late because she's an international spy. It's a small price to pay for a world where marmalade has been liberated from the greasy hands of evil."
Posted by ClaudiaTherese (Member # 923) on :
*laughing
---
To further beat the horse in clarification, I agree with katharina that faking attraction is Not a Good Thing. And as I said before, I don't think less of people for feeling what they feel. That is just the way it is. But when you deliberately cut yourself from other potentialities (and to the extent that you do), you are missing an opportunity to see if that really is all you are [and can be] attracted to.
[One reason to not limit oneself by underscoring one's already-established appetites to the exclusion of other possibilities is that we do, indeed, change over time. All mates we might have will, as well, and often not in clearly predictible ways. Developing the possibility of enjoying broader (rather than narrower) criteria of attractiveness gives us better skills at maintaining healthy relationships over time, should we wish to do that. (I think it's a good and useful trait for those not interested in long-term mating as well, but obviously for other reasons.)]
But if you do, I'll still be your friend. I might even call you an International Marmalade Spy. *grin
[ March 25, 2007, 09:38 PM: Message edited by: ClaudiaTherese ]
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote:Originally posted by Annie: he inside of my mind is pretty much a constant discussion between the Kat-like voice and the Porter/Bev-like voice.
I love the image of your little shoulder angels/devils being Kat and Porter/Bev.
Posted by MightyCow (Member # 9253) on :
Is it worse to cut yourself off from potentialities, or to date someone for a while, realize that you really don't find them attractive, and dump them because they really weren't for you, but you were trying to expand your horizons?
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
I think that part of this issue touches on the question of what we think are the essential qualities of a person. What makes us the person we are? What parts of the bundle of things that make up "Kate" are close to the core of who I am? When we fall in love with someone, we fall in love with that bundle, some of which will change. What, if changed, will make me fundamentally differert?
Ultimately, I think this is the soul and none of us can perfectly know that, but there are qualities, I think, that are more or less central. My long hair, my comfy upholstered-ness, the fact that I often smell good are all parts of who I am, but I think that there "deeper" qualities that are more essential parts of the bundle. For example, I think many of you know "me" better from reading what I write than you would from seeing my picture.
I think that this dating site focuses on criteria that, at least for me, is both more changable and less essential.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
Thank you, bev, for the explanation.
Annie, it's a funny image, but what I really think has been mischaracterized here. I don't have the energy to keep explaining it when there didn't seem to be a lot of attempt to understand in the first place. I'm not the opposing angel.
Basically, I think that I'd rather slit my wrists than talk myself into liking someone. I'm sad for anyone that is with someone they had to talk themself into liking.
quote:But what is the value in cutting out less attractive people?
Dating is not without cost. Dating is an allocation of resources, and dating people you don't like means you are not available to those that you might.
quote:I imagine that many of the people who say they want an intelligent mate could easily be attracted to someone who isn't very intelligent.
Maybe this is the crux. I don't think so. I have dated a wide range of guys, and several of them were righteous, good, charming, and hot, but of either average intelligence or smart in things I didn't connect with (despite my clinical admiration, it turns out a knowledge of computers does NOTHING for me). A couple I dated ONLY because they were hot, which I feel kind of bad about because nothing else attracted me but I suppose I'm terribly shallow and there's something appealling about pure eye candy. It only lasted a few dates, though. I was bored out of my mind. I gave it an honest shot, and I'd rather shoot myself than do it again. I suppose some people can handle being mentally frustrated every time they talk to their significant other, but to me it sucked all the fun out of being with someone altogether.
Maybe this is the difference - I would a million times rather be alone than be with someone whose company I don't enjoy. No one HAS to find someone, and it's a big world - big enough to include people who are intelligent, righteous, and hot all at the same time. That's worth searching out and waiting for.
Annie, I'd recommend reading what President Kimball said about this in the Teachings of the Presidents of the Church book for this year. There's a couple chapters on dating and marriage, and in there I made the joyous discovery that while he did say the "any two people living the gospel" thing, he prefaced it with "start with finding someone who meets as closely as possible what you want in a partner." Yay!
[ March 26, 2007, 08:41 AM: Message edited by: katharina ]
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:Basically, I think that I'd rather slit my wrists than talk myself into liking someone. I'm sad for anyone that is with someone they had to talk themself into liking.
I don't think it's the first sentence that people take issue with, but the second (not the accuracy of the description of your feelings, obviously, but the understanding that informs it.)
Why would you be sad for someone who has a loving, committed relationship with someone they truly want to spend the rest of their life with because they started from different premises about learned attraction than you?
There's a missing step between "I could not be happy with someone I had to talk myself into liking" and "I'm sad for anyone that is with someone they had to talk themself into liking." Nothing that I can think of to fill it in implies that you accept their own assessment of their state of happiness.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
Fortunately, everyone is in charge of their own lives, and if that's what people want to do with theirs, they are welcome to it and my opinion is meaningless and I won't share it unless asked. Especially since what happens in any given relationship is unknowable to anyone but those involved, unknowable even to closest friends. At least, it should be. Opinions of other people's relationships are inherently misinformed.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:Opinions of other people's relationships are inherently misinformed.
I think they're inherently underinformed, but not necessarily misinformed.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
I think people fill in the gaps with speculation, and unless they have amazing speculating powers, they are almost always at least a little bit wrong.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote:I'm sad for anyone that is with someone they had to talk themself into liking.
I really don't get this. If they talked themselves into like someone, instead of faking it, then they like that person, and have as great a chance of being happy with that person as anybody else.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
My guess is that this "little bit wrong," for many people, falls well within the margin of error. I can't imagine how crippled as a race we'd be if we didn't speculate about things we hadn't experienced.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
quote:My guess is that this "little bit wrong," for many people, falls well within the margin of error.
See, like the above statements where people are sure that other people could talk themselves into not wanting someone intelligent, it's down to opinion. I think the speculation is often (usually? in some things at least) outside the margin of error. Outside of a some study (and the effort needed to make it a good one is astounding), I don't think this is provable either way.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
quote:quote: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- I'm sad for anyone that is with someone they had to talk themself into liking. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I really don't get this. If they talked themselves into like someone, instead of faking it, then the like that person, and have as great a chance of being happy with that person as anybody else.
Maybe I mean "have to" instead of "had to." If every morning there needs to be another self-pep talk, then that's sad. If not, hey, more power to them. My opinion on their relationship doesn't matter anyway. Posted by MightyCow (Member # 9253) on :
Here's another angle to consider. I would suggest that all well adjusted individuals would ideally like to find the partner who is best suited for them, who would make them the most happy out of all possible partners, whom they could best please, and in short, is the awesomest possible mate.
If you feel that one of the qualities of your awesomest possible mate is that they're really hot, it makes sense to start your search among really hot people.
Let's say that some of your awesomest possible mate qualities are good at chess, loves Tolstoy, sings opera, is very attractive, is successful at work, loves children, and aspires to write poetry. Unfortunately, you can't find ChessGrandmasterDating.com, MeetTolstoyLovingOperaSingers.com or PoetsWhoLoveChildrenAndTheirWorkAndWantToMeet.com, so you have to settle for starting at the attractive website, and scanning through their profiles looking for the rest.
I guess that makes you pretty damn shallow.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote:Maybe I mean "have to" instead of "had to." If every morning there needs to be another self-pep talk, then that's sad. If not, hey, more power to them. My opinion on their relationship doesn't matter anyway. [Smile]
Ah. I understand what you're saying.
However, in my experience, it doesn't work that way. First you develop the ability to be interested in / attracted to people with [insert_quality_here], and only after that is finished do you somebody with that ability that you like enough to get into a relationship with.
So by the time the relationship starts, there's no need for pep talks.
Because who would want to get into a relationship with somebody they don't like in that way? Ick.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
quote:Because who would want to get into a relationship with somebody they don't like in that way? Ick.
Exactly!
For the other part, I disagree, but I can't imagine that further discussion in circles would help anything.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
CT, If I understand you correctly, it is shallow to not try to find people you don't find attractive, attractive. If that is the case, I just don't agree and I don't think that your description of how mucher richer your life would be if you do this makes much sense.
I'm a little confused by you reducing this to hind-brain only preference. Appreciation of beauty is not merely a hind brain thing. Aesthetic enjoyment involves activation of much more than the hind-brain. When I'm appreciating a work of art, say of a beautiful person, I am not primarily operating on an erotic or hind-brain level. I know plenty of beautiful people that I feel no sexual attraction to whom I still appreciate the looks of. The part of my stunningly attractive girlfriend that takes my breath away isn't confined to base erotic desire, but takes a large part from her aethestic "goodness".
There are people who are plainer than others, who are aesthetically less interesting. I don't see how preferring the more beautiful person (all other things being equal) is more shallow than preferring a more accomplished work of art over a lesser one.
I don't see how one would intrinsically grow less from dating more attractive people versus less attractive ones.
I also want to make the point again that there is no reason to believe that the people on this site are limited or limiting themselves to this site in their dating pool. This is only one of the many places they may be looking.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote:For the other part, I disagree, but I can't imagine that further discussion in circles would help anything.
Do you disagree that it has worked that way for some, or that it could work that way for you, or something else?
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
I disagree that that is the only way it works. Since it your experience it has worked for you, it can clearly work for some.
However, I do NOT think that that is "the way it works" and other people who handle it differently are out of the norm. I think this is a highly, highly individualized thing, which is why I think being judgmental about the way other people conduct their love lives (barring, of course, the ridiculous extremes (and, incidentally, barring any children that are involved and are being adversely affected by their parents' choices)) is wrong in both a moral and factual sense.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
I am not at all saying that people should try to be attracted to people they are not. I don't think that is possible for everyone. I think it is easier for some than for others. I don't think it would be something I could do.
My argumment is different. I am saying that "attracted" does not have to be a function (or only a function, or primarily a function) of an objective standard of physical beauty. I think that we are conditioned to think that it is through TV etc. I think that as society we tend to think that how we look is much more connected to attraction than it has to be.
For example: I work at a University and there are a lot of very, very good looking, young, fit, could-be-models coeds who are having sex lives that suck compared to mine (on those occasions when I have a sex life).
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:I think this is a highly, highly individualized thing, which is why I think being judgmental about the way other people conduct their love lives
I don't understand the difference between "I'm sad for anyone that is with someone they have to talk themself into liking" and "I'm sad for anyone that couldn't be with someone who doesn't possess a certain level of physical attractiveness."
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
Aw, Dag, can you see how they are not the same thing?
Posted by ClaudiaTherese (Member # 923) on :
quote:Originally posted by MrSquicky: CT, If I understand you correctly, it is shallow to not try to find people you don't find attractive, attractive. If that is the case, I just don't agree and I don't think that your description of how mucher richer your life would be if you do this makes much sense.
*sigh
No. That is not what I am saying.
quote:Originally posted by MrSquicky:I also want to make the point again that there is no reason to believe that the people on this site are limited or limiting themselves to this site in their dating pool. This is only one of the many places they may be looking.
This is also not what I am saying.
quote:Originally posted by MightyCow: Is it worse to cut yourself off from potentialities, or to date someone for a while ...
And these are not the only options I have raised, so this isn't related to what I have suggested.
quote:Originally posted by katharina: Basically, I think that I'd rather slit my wrists than talk myself into liking someone.
I'm not sure if katharina is talking to me, but this is surely not what I am suggesting. She and I are in agreement here, for what it's worth.
quote:Originally posted by katharina: I'm sad for anyone that is with someone they had to talk themself into liking.
Also not what I'd promote.
quote:Originally posted by katharina: ... but I suppose I'm terribly shallow ...
Not a statement I'd endorse at all, but again, katharina may not have been talking to me. (I, however, have been talking about gradations, but not to the extent of "terribly," which suggests the sort of black/white blanket condemnation I have specifically opposed.)
quote:Originally posted by katharina: Maybe this is the difference - I would a million times rather be alone than be with someone whose company I don't enjoy.
Me, too, and avoiding this is a course I would recommend to anyone.
quote:Originally posted by MightyCow: ... I guess that makes you pretty damn shallow.
Ah, MightyCow, you cause a great pain in my breast. A great, great pain. I cannot see how you cannot be deliberately misreading me, but perhaps that is a failure of my imagination. (I surely do have that, to some extent, just as I have greed, to some extent, and sloth, to some extent, as well as the rest of the many vices we humans have. It doesn't make me want to overstate that self-judgment in order to make it seem absurd, though, as that seems an even greater vice to me. perhaps because I associate it with my ex-husband, who would do this in order to avoid sealing with the actual criticism, which was much milder and, as it turned out, most apt. But that's another matter.)
I suppose I cause a pain in your breast, as well. I can only hope not. It isn't something I would wish on you.
I am just going to cut and paste from above, as I am too weary to continue: Not a statement I'd endorse at all, but again, [MightyCow] may not have been talking to me. (I, however, have been talking about gradations, but not to the extent of ["pretty damn,"] which suggests the sort of black/white blanket condemnation I have specifically opposed.)
---
And what Tom said. And Porteiro.
---
But I can only conclude that I am not actually talking to anybody, because from what I can see, nobody is talking to me. This is a puzzle, but perhaps a very useful lesson. Whatever I may have to say may well be quite relevant and interesting in my head, but that says nothing about the world outside it. And surely there is no requirement for anyone at Hatrack to listen to or respond to any particular poster, save for Papa Moose.
I may well be just nattering on aloud in the corner. Rather like the embarrassing aunt you keep hoping won't show up at Christmastime (I mean, perhaps you like her, and you might have good memories of her, but you mostly feel sorry and embarrassed for her.)
---
Edited immediately to make the HTML do my mighty bidding. And correct a word choice, and to finish a truncated thought.
[ March 26, 2007, 11:34 AM: Message edited by: ClaudiaTherese ]
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:Aw, Dag, can you see how they are not the same thing?
I can see how they are different. I honestly can't see how those differences render one as being judgmental and one not.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
I think I get what you are saying Aunt CT. Of course, I'm sitting here in the corner with you, knitting and chatting about our great sex lives.
Posted by steven (Member # 8099) on :
" Of course, I'm sitting here in the corner with you, knitting and chatting about our great sex lives."
*eavesdrops on conversation* Posted by ClaudiaTherese (Member # 923) on :
*laughing
Cool, kmboots. We'll just natter on to ourselves.
---
Do you know I have turned down 7 serious marriage proposals, other than the two I accepted? It's true. Ah, memories.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
I'm just saying that it would be nice if, say, the people on the website were let alone to do the same. Posted by Jim-Me (Member # 6426) on :
For what it may be worth, I have seen Kate touch a couple of times on something that I'm not really seeing acknowledge by anyone else (though I am skimming very lightly, so I may have missed it entirely).
Kate keeps referring to having a problem with an objective standard of beauty.
Is it possible that some of the people who have a problem with that site have a problem with it because it is, to an extent, saying "here are people that we have, on our authority, declared hot."
IOW, it's not that the people who are searching are looking for someone attractive, but that they are limiting themselves (to use CT's phrase)to only searching what the people who own the website have pre-screened as being attractive, according to, presumably, empirical criteria.
Just a thought. Maybe one that has been brought up, but it seems it's being overlooked at this stage of the conversation.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
I tend to turn down more propositions than proposals...
Does my nattering makes sense to you?
I keep reading this and thinking of various conversations I have had with gorgeous young women dating gorgeous young men and having a lot of not very good sex.
Posted by steven (Member # 8099) on :
I find it kind of interesting that "hot" doesn't always even begin to equate to "good in bed", IME.
I've been seeing this girl for a couple of weeks who is fairly average in looks, but she kisses and does...other things....well, she's by far the best kisser I've ever kissed.
Posted by ClaudiaTherese (Member # 923) on :
To natter to themselves, or to turn down marriage proposals?
I take it you mean to be left alone. I know this is likely to come off as rude, so I will be as delicate as possible (because honestly, I do not want to offend you, and I like you far too much to treat you lightly): do you mean that people shouldn't respond tot he discussion at a public forum, or that people shouldn't ask prying questions about personal elements which haven't already been put out in the public forum?
I understand the latter, but I can't quite wrap my head around the former.
However, for what it's worth, I mostly agree with you, and I think you are simply smashing. I think, to be specific, that you've done much more with your self and have a much better life than I. I'd certainly point more to you as a role model than myself, katharina.
Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
(To Jim-Me)
The site definitely bugs me, and I'm not confident that I have been able to place my finger on *exactly* why, but that is an excellent point.
BTW, is anyone seeing the same ad on the bottom of the page that I am? I am suddenly reminded of Zoolander.
[ March 26, 2007, 12:45 PM: Message edited by: beverly ]
Posted by camus (Member # 8052) on :
I think attraction is a largely unconscious action, and eventually our conscious mind catches up and (correctly/incorrectly) fills in the blanks or reasons for the attraction. When we are attracted to physical beauty, then we try to rationalize other qualities to support that attraction, qualities that we may not otherwise have entertained (for example, obnoxious turns into confident and funny). When we are attracted to other qualities, then sometimes we begin to view their physical qualities differently to support our attraction. In either case, we can't really decide our attraction, just the reasons we use to understand or rationalize that attraction.
Posted by ClaudiaTherese (Member # 923) on :
Hoo-ha, katharina, did your last post on the previous page get edited after it was first posted? It's much different than I remembered; ie..e, you hadn't specified "on that site."
No matter, really, just trying to keep track of the conversation.
---
Edited to add: In the context of how your post is currently written, you'll note that I haven't done anything at all that affects the people on that site whatsoever. I have formed an opinion of them (as we all do, of all things and people we experience) to the extent that I know something about them, but this opinion affects them not in the slightest.
How much more "leaving the alone" could I be and still pay attention to what has been put in the public arena? And even then, it affects them not. Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
Claudia Therese, I think you are darling, and I the reason I haven't responded specifically to your posts is because I swear it causes panic in my heart to be in disagreement with you on anything.
I didn't edit my last post.
I'm all for turning down marriage proposals. I've turned down more than I've accepted, which added together makes a number that at this point tends to make my family and friends shake their heads lightly.
For the let alone part, I think that, in general, people know best about who they are attracted to, and telling people they should have standards different than those that they do seems futile.
Maybe it is the word "should"? I hate the word "should." I don't give it credence at all. The Lord never uses such a word - I like that the Lord doesn't deal in subjunctives. "Love thy neighbor." "Turn the other cheek." "Thou shalt not kill." Those are commandments. "Should"s deal with societal expectations, but those without the force of laws or commandments. The great thing about commandments is that they also carry promises. "Should"s carry no promises. If you bend yourself to follow a "should" and it doesn't work out, that's the breaks - there were no guarantees in the first place. Shoulds are like unfunded federal mandates, without the federal part.
I think there are things which we are ordered to do, and the rest is up to our own discretion.
Posted by ClaudiaTherese (Member # 923) on :
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: I tend to turn down more propositions than proposals...
Well, kmboots, you are better in bed than I am. In this I bow to the Master. Mistress. *grin
I think I have been seen by mates seeking marriage to be a useful object, like a vase. Fits in the corner, looks nice, blends in.
quote:Does my nattering makes sense to you?
I keep reading this and thinking of various conversations I have had with gorgeous young women dating gorgeous young men and having a lot of not very good sex.
Indeed, it does. And I think you are very wise.
Posted by ClaudiaTherese (Member # 923) on :
quote:Originally posted by katharina: Claudia Therese, I think you are darling, and I the reason I haven't responded specifically to your posts is because I swear it causes panic in my heart to be in disagreement with you on anything.
I didn't edit my last post.
Then I am, indeed, a little Crazy Auntish. *grin
quote:For the let alone part, I think that, in general, people know best about who they are attracted to, and telling people they should have standards different than those that they do seems futile.
Hmm. I'd consider it "encouraging people to keep themselves open to unexpected treats," but I might have not have been clear. It is certainly not the only spot in my life where misinterpretation (or my own lack of clarity in speech) is going on.
quote:Maybe it is the word "should"? I hate the word "should." I don't give it credence at all. The Lord never uses such a word - I like that the Lord doesn't deal in subjunctives. "Love thy neighbor." "Turn the other cheek." "Thou shalt not kill." Those are commandments. "Should"s deal with societal expectations, but those without the force of laws or commandments. I think there are things which we are ordered to do, and the rest is up to our own discretion.
Ah. "Should." I will go back and reread my posts and look for the "shoulds." I would like to be aware of this, if this is what I am doing.
Thanks.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Sigh. Probably not - I get very little practice these days. And really, how would we judge that?
I have been blessed with wonderful teachers.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
CT, it is entirely possible that you never have used the word "should." Perhaps I am reading more into it than is there, relying too much on past experience to inform the present one. I hope I am not, and if I am, I am sorry.
Posted by ClaudiaTherese (Member # 923) on :
Kate: Would that we all were.
----
katharina, when I research back through the last few pages, I see you using "should" relatively frequently, and a few times in quotation marks. beverly seems to use it as well, and you were mainly talking to each other.
The very few times I used "should" (and not once "ought," I think, though I didn't search for that in particular), it was not in respect to what people ought to do with their personal lives.
I can repost those instances here, or perhaps you could show me where the "should" comes in that I am missing and which you referenced just above. Or did you think it was implied?
---
Edited to add: Ah. Well, I have done it many times myself, katharina. And perhaps with more careful wording and more detailed explanation, it would have been more difficult to misread. I'll work on it.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
CT, I am not saying that you have used the word. I think I was thinking of the times beverly used it.
I probably have. It is such a natural part of our vocabulary, and I have to remind myself that I don't believe in it every once in a while. It's like a profanity habit that I regret in myself but they slip in when I'm not paying attention.
quote:But I still think that when it works, that's pretty much how it works.
The other alternative is that someone has a standard, they come to realize that someone who doesn't meet that standard has become important to them, and THEN they revise the standard because they have compelling reason to - they want to be with the person who doesn't meet it.
That isn't the process you described, but I think that happens as often as (more often than)the other way around. In part because not everyone thinks ahead of time exactly what they are looking for, and in part because without that darling person who fits in all the ways at stake, there's no real motivation to change one's preferences.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
What do you folks for whom physical beauty is a necessary but not sufficient condition of attraction plan to do when your partner (and presumably you) stops being physically beautiful?
Not judging, just concerned/curious. As I said, I have known more than one marriage to end because a partner put on weight.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote:Maybe it is the word "should"? I hate the word "should." I don't give it credence at all. The Lord never uses such a word - I like that the Lord doesn't deal in subjunctives. "Love thy neighbor." "Turn the other cheek." "Thou shalt not kill." Those are commandments. "Should"s deal with societal expectations, but those without the force of laws or commandments. I think there are things which we are ordered to do, and the rest is up to our own discretion.
I'm interested in this idea. At least initially, I don't agree with it, but I know that something similar has really helped me in the past. I think there's truth there, but I don't grock it yet.
When I was in the middle of my most difficult bout of depression, it really helped me to rephrase things like "I should do X" to something more like "I will be happier if I do X" or "I'm more likely to get result Y if I do X". And yet, I don't really understand how it helped.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
MPH: You changed the statement from an unfunded mandate to a statement with a promise attached. I can see that being more helpful than an injuction with no promises to it.
Posted by pH (Member # 1350) on :
The one thing I'm noticing is reference to an objective standard of beauty. And I don't think there is one. What people in general consider beautiful varies from place to place. Take off the "in general," and you have a whole other can of worms. I think that's where we're talking past each other a little. I don't think kat has referred to an objective standard of beauty. And I don't really think there is one. Or if there is, I don't know what it is. Most of the men on that site are a bit bland-looking to me. So either I only date people who are much hotter than an 8, or we're using an entirely different physical attractiveness scale.
-pH
Posted by erosomniac (Member # 6834) on :
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: What do you folks for whom physical beauty is a necessary but not sufficient condition of attraction plan to do when your partner (and presumably you) stops being physically beautiful?
Not judging, just concerned/curious. As I said, I have known more than one marriage to end because a partner put on weight.
I don't understand why everyone assumes physical beauty fades with age.
That's kind of wholeheartedly depressing.
Posted by ClaudiaTherese (Member # 923) on :
quote:Originally posted by pH: The one thing I'm noticing is reference to an objective standard of beauty. And I don't think there is one. What people in general consider beautiful varies from place to place. Take off the "in general," and you have a whole other can of worms. I think that's where we're talking past each other a little. I don't think kat has referred to an objective standard of beauty. And I don't really think there is one. Or if there is, I don't know what it is. Most of the men on that site are a bit bland-looking to me. So either I only date people who are much hotter than an 8, or we're using an entirely different physical attractiveness scale.
-pH
*nods
The only such objectiveness in a standard of beauty I've seen in this thread is the way that site works: namely, that unless sufficient numbers of other viewers rate a member as attractive, that member will be dropped from view (as I understand it -- perhaps I am misunderstanding).
This for me, went quite past the idea that those involved were only seeking that which they themselves were attracted to anyway. I mentioned this previously, I believe even in bold font.
Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: My argumment is different. I am saying that "attracted" does not have to be a function (or only a function, or primarily a function) of an objective standard of physical beauty.
I agree with this statement only because the word "objective" is unqualified. [Added: That is, I agree with the people who question or deny the existence of such a standard.] But that hit of dopamine you get when you first see someone has to come from your conscious and/or subconscious criteria for physical attractiveness (regardless of what those criteria actually are), unless you're arguing that there's some kind of ESP thing going on. I don't think there's an objective standard, but I absolutely think that everyone has subconscious hot/not hot triggers and that many people have triggers in common (e.g. facial symmetry).
An obvious example for me is when I see a girl who is hot (by whatever criteria for hotness are buried in my subconscious) smoking a cigarette. It triggers simultaneous attraction and repulsion, with the attraction being a largely subconscious response and the repulsion being a conditioned but conscious response based on my strong dislike of cigarette smoke.
I don't dispute that it's possible to become attracted to someone without having seen them, but I do think it's relatively uncommon. There have been a couple of times where I've met someone who I either haven't seen before or have only seen photos of, and I try to go in to those situations with the understanding that I might be physically unattracted to the person upon actually meeting them.
Similarly, when going on a date with someone who I only know in passing and am mostly attracted to for physical reasons, I try to keep in mind that we may well not be on the same intellectual wavelength in terms of ideology, interests, et cetera. Matching these things isn't a requirement, of course, but too vast a difference can certainly lead to problems. For example, if she looks on video games with scorn, we probably aren't going to get along; I talk about them rather a lot.
I tend to split my thinking on attraction and compatibility into three categories: emotional, intellectual, and physical. Each category is encompassing, though, so physical compatibility includes both the hot/not hot triggers and the mechanics of doing naughty things together. As an example, I dated a girl who I found extremely attractive, but for some reason we just didn't kiss well. This same girl put me up on what I'd call an intellectual pedestal -- we could never really discuss many interesting and substantive topics because she would just defer to my opinion.
Those, though, are longer-term things, at least in the conventional sense of physically meeting someone first before getting interested.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
Beauty, as defined by "objective" standards such as used in this web site, most definitely fades as the decades pass.
---
Kat: would you mind elaborating more, either here or elsewhere, about why you hate the word "should"? I truly am interested in it.
Posted by pH (Member # 1350) on :
quote:Originally posted by ClaudiaTherese:
quote:Originally posted by pH: The one thing I'm noticing is reference to an objective standard of beauty. And I don't think there is one. What people in general consider beautiful varies from place to place. Take off the "in general," and you have a whole other can of worms. I think that's where we're talking past each other a little. I don't think kat has referred to an objective standard of beauty. And I don't really think there is one. Or if there is, I don't know what it is. Most of the men on that site are a bit bland-looking to me. So either I only date people who are much hotter than an 8, or we're using an entirely different physical attractiveness scale.
-pH
*nods
The only such objectiveness in a standard of beauty I've seen in this thread is the way that site works: namely, that unless sufficient numbers of other viewers rate a member as attractive, that member will be dropped from view (as I understand it -- perhaps I am misunderstanding).
This for me, went quite past the idea that those involved were only seeking that which they themselves were attracted to anyway. I mentioned this previously, I believe even in bold font.
Sorry I missed it, then. My contacts are blurry, and I've skimmed posts that happened since I went to bed.
-pH
Posted by erosomniac (Member # 6834) on :
quote:Originally posted by mr_porteiro_head: Beauty, as defined by "objective" standards such as used in this web site, most definitely fades as the decades pass.
I wasn't aware this website was using an objective standard, or that such an objective standard existed.
Whatever it is, I never agreed to it!
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
It's "objective" standard is the opinion of the majority of its users.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
CT, I think I must really not be understanding what you are saying then.
One thing did seem pretty clear to me though. That is, you seem pretty sure that the people on this site are shallow. As I said, I would consider joining this site in different circumstances. To my reading, I think you're pretty strongly implying that I am shallow.
Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
I'm not sure, but one reason to dislike "shoulds" from another person is that they have to do with another person's interpretation of right. We all should (there I go using the "s" word) be able to define right for ourselves, right?
Also, "should" seems to suggest an unwillingness. "I really should go to bed and wake up earlier, but I sure don't want to." Saying "If I go to bed and wake up earlier, I will be happier," we leave out the sense of reluctance and focus on the good it will bring.
My internet connection is really sluggish right now, so I don't really feel like looking back and finding all my uses of "should." Though I am curious about what I said.
Edit: I used the word "should" three times before it was brought up. I never used in reference to being attracted to "hot" people. Two were hypotheticals (not representing my actual opinion) and the third was to make a point of agreeing with what others had said. Just for the record.
[ March 26, 2007, 01:21 PM: Message edited by: beverly ]
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
Beverly, none of that is what I meant. I have a project right now that needs my attention and I want to type out what I mean clearly, so I'll just mention really fast that those are interesting thoughts, but they are not mine.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:I think there are things which we are ordered to do, and the rest is up to our own discretion.
Is it wrong to say that, all else being held equal, someone should not smoke?
Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
That's cool. I will be interested in what you have to say on the subject.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
Kat: I can wait. Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
I think most of you are too concerned about the morality/ethics of whether a site filtering people based on looks "should" be done, rather than whether it "can" be done well at all.
I took a look at their procedure:
quote: 1. New members (registrants) must submit three photos of themselves at signup. These photos must include one full body shot. Only one professional photo will be allowed. 2. Submitted photos will be sent to our site administrators where they will be judged based upon whether the registrant appears well-kept and in shape. 3. If the registrant passes the assessment, he or she will be granted prospective member status. 4. Prospective members photos are then forwarded to Hotenough’s voting area where active members will cast their votes. 5. Once a prospective member receives 25 votes, he or she must maintain a score of eight or above to become an active member.
Note that the site administrator was a first pass and that the popularity scheme is based on mass popularity of existing members.
I see several problems: First, the site administrators can be extremely arbitrary with no recourse. Second, the existing population may be very skewed with consequences on who they find attractive/admit. Third, beauty is very culturally dependent, at least in my experience most of the Chinese women Chinese people find really attractive are not attractive by Western standard. Conversely, the Chinese women that Westerners find attractive tend not to be attractive to Chinese people since they tend to be , essentially Chinese versions of American models...except "exotic" so long-legged, large breasts, "exotic" looking eyes maybe. Fourth, there's no real safeguard against fake pictures which I've heard are surprisingly common in online dating communities.
Posted by ClaudiaTherese (Member # 923) on :
quote:Originally posted by MrSquicky: CT, I think I must really not be understanding what you are saying then.
One thing did seem pretty clear to me though. That is, you seem pretty sure that the people on this site are shallow. As I said, I would consider joining this site in different circumstances. To my reading, I think you're pretty strongly implying that I am shallow.
I am not sure what to say, except to say that given how I read you reading me (e.g., making a blanket black/white condemnation of a person rather than "a claim about a degree of [a non-admirable but not necessarily indicative of general depravity of any sort] quality which all of us have, including me to some extent or another" (such as untrustworthiness, as analogy) (see prior page's attempts at disambiguation, unwieldy as they may be)), I wouldn't much appreciate myself either.
The former is quite offensive, I think. I tried over and over and over again, as hard as I possibly could, to constrain my implications to the latter.
I can understand not liking being thought of as non-admirable in any way, shape or form, but I think it's inevitable, unless one believes oneself a perfect ideal. I doubt any of us do.
I certainly wouldn't say you were a worthless human being, or terrible, or a horrid person for joining that site, MrSquicky. I do think it would be a choice that is on a trend that makes less of you rather than more of you, but -- of course -- I make many such decisions myself, all the time. So it goes.
My apologies for having been offensive. It was not my intent, but it was the effect, and I am responsible for that.
----
Edited to add:
quote:Originally posted by MrSquicky: To my reading, I think you're pretty strongly implying that I am shallow.
Hmmm. I think this is the point where I lose you, or you lose me, or both. Right here.
Is it worth pursuing, or is it better dropped? I can't tell myself which is the better action, and I'll defer to your wishes. [Edited again to add: Actually, it seems pretty clear that not only is this going nowhere, but it is actually going backwards. I think it's best to end the discussion between us without any semblance of resolution, unfortunately.]
[ March 26, 2007, 02:21 PM: Message edited by: ClaudiaTherese ]
Posted by pH (Member # 1350) on :
Here's a question:
Does anyone here actually HAVE a set standard of physical attractiveness? I mean, I have preferences, but none of them are absolute deal-breakers. What do you look for physically, if anything?
-pH
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
Must be taller than me. Prerably by a couple of inches.
Hmm...but you know, I don't know if that's actually iron-clad. I can think of a guy I would have happily dated under different circumstances who was, I think, my height or maybe one inch shorter. It is hard to tell because I usually wear high heels.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
CT, I was never reading you as issuing a blanket condemnation of me or of the people on that site. I was reading you as (in my opinion, unjustifiably) attributing an attribute and likely behavior to me and to these peopel.
I fail to see how making a choice towards signing up for this site, in conjunction with all the other things I'd be doing to look for potential dating partners means that I'd be making less of myself than I could. I'd like you to explain, if you could, in what way I would be less of a person if I joined (or perhaps it would be easier to show how I would be more of a person if I did not join the site).
Also, I'd appreciate it if you would address my point about aethestic beauty not being a function primarily of the hind-brain.
Posted by ClaudiaTherese (Member # 923) on :
I have yet to talk to anyone about this further along in life (oh, say, the equivalent of a mildly aged cheese, although not necessarily well-crusted) who hasn't related at least one "you know, I never thought I'd be attracted to a <____> guy (or <____> woman), but there was this time when <____> and man! Where did that come from?" kind of story.
Of course, I have not spoken to everyone I've met about this. It's been a good smattering, though, which leads me to suspect it's pretty common.
I think I'll carry my discussion on over to Mike's place at this point, as it involves me discussing my own depraved impulses and experiences, and I've skirted close enough to HR's boundaries of TMI as it is.
Posted by pH (Member # 1350) on :
quote:Originally posted by katharina: Must be taller than me. Prerably by a couple of inches.
Hmm...but you know, I don't know if that's actually iron-clad. I can think of a guy I would have happily dated under different circumstances who was, I think, my height or maybe one inch shorter. It is hard to tell because I usually wear high heels.
My height issue is more along the lines of whether or not the man has an problem with my height. If he's okay with the height difference, I'm okay with it. If he's not, I'm not going to stop wearing heels or start slouching, so chances are it won't work out. Of course, most of the time when a man has an issue with my height, it seems to have more to do with how secure he is in his masculinity...which makes it a personality concern.
Is there a reasoning behind your height preference, or is it just what you like better? ( Not asking you to defend yourself or anything, just wondering)
-pH
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
I still fail to see how being suprised by being attracted to someone you wouldn't expect makes you more of a person.
If you treat them correctly, every person is a bundle of surprises. What is it specifically about physical attraction that raises it above these other things?
Also, I'm not sure what about signing up for this site would prevent me from being surprised by being attracted to someone I didn't expect.
Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
I have a certain "look" that I find particularly attractive, but I haven't often dated guys with that look. Honestly, that appearance seems to have practically nothing to do whatsoever with my actual happiness with a relationship. It is extremely superficial.
Doesn't change the "wow" reaction when I see someone that has that look, though. If I were to sign up for a dating site that somehow only had guys that had that look, I would certainly be selling myself short. (Not saying this to anyone in particular, just sayin'.)
Posted by ClaudiaTherese (Member # 923) on :
quote:Originally posted by MrSquicky: CT, I was never reading you as issuing a blanket condemnation of me or of the people on that site. I was reading you as (in my opinion, unjustifiably) attributing an attribute and likely behavior to me and to these peopel.
I fail to see how making a choice towards signing up for this site, in conjunction with all the other things I'd be doing to look for potential dating partners means that I'd be making less of myself than I could. I'd like you to explain, if you could, in what way I would be less of a person if I joined (or perhaps it would be easier to show how I would be more of a person if I did not join the site).
Darlin', I can only refer you to my prior posts, where I done discussed that one to death. I honestly just can't bring myself to do it again, especially with likely no better understanding to come of it.
I'm sorry. Honestly, I am. I just can't do it yet again.
quote:Also, I'd appreciate it if you would address my point about aethestic beauty not being a function primarily of the hind-brain.
I was addressing the general topic at hand of not being able to help being attracted to certain people, and whether chosing dates on that basis was a shallow action. I wasn't being exhaustive of all the ways in which one could interpret all of the various terms we were using, but then again, I wasn't expected that I'd have to.
(The conversation has been surprising in so many ways. Who knew!)
I can see where one might distinguish that topic of conversation from, say, if one were to consider if it is shallow to deny attraction to someone because he or she does not fit one's purely cerebral notions of attractiveness, in a sort of unemotional aesthetic appreciation. But that had seemed like a different conversation, and it still seems like it would be a different conversation, and you are welcome to carry it on without me. Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
quote:I were to sign up for a dating site that somehow only had guys that had that look, I would certainly be selling myself short.
How so?
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
CT, Have you read my posts at all? I don't see anything in what you've written that touches on anything I've said except in a very superficial manner.
edit: I don't mind if you don't want to respond to my posts, but it does kind of bug me if you pretend like you have when it really doesn't look to me like you haven't.
Posted by ClaudiaTherese (Member # 923) on :
quote:Originally posted by MrSquicky: I still fail to see how being suprised by being attracted to someone you wouldn't expect makes you more of a person.
This is a marvelous trainwreck. Marvelous in the sense of "we are on different planets, and apparently on yours, trains are made of cheese, and also a trainwreck is a formal dance party."
quote:If you treat them correctly, every person is a bundle of surprises. What is it specifically about physical attraction that raises it above these other things?
Ah, this too.
MrSquicky, I'm not engaging in discourse [further with you] at this point, because from what I can see, it is either not in good faith, or there are two different and noncommensurate conversations going on between us. It seems prudent to just call a halt.
However, I may continue to be flippant and mocking to you, especially if I think you are continuing to address a hypothetical and uncharitable version of me. I do think this is rude of me, but I think I might just do it. Or maybe go grade some papers. But I thought I should warn you, as that (at least) might mitigate some of the rude behavior to come. Or not.
Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
Because it is a meaningless trait to look for. That "wow" impulse means very little to my happiness and enjoyment of being with someone. Also, I can't trust myself to not be swayed in ways that would mar my better judgment.
Posted by ClaudiaTherese (Member # 923) on :
quote:Originally posted by MrSquicky: CT, Have you read my posts at all? I don't see anything in what you've written that touches on anything I've said except in a very superficial manner.
See above re: non-commissural conversations
Welcome to my world! It's better than a kick in the head.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
CT, When were you engaging in discourse? I went through them and I honestly can't find a post of yours where you addressed any of the points I made.
Posted by pH (Member # 1350) on :
quote:Originally posted by beverly: Because it is a meaningless trait to look for. That "wow" impulse means very little to my happiness and enjoyment of being with someone. Also, I can't trust myself to not be swayed in ways that would mar my better judgment.
I absolutely require a "wow" feeling before I will consider dating someone. I've tried to date people without that factor before, and it ends in disaster. I end up resenting him, or he ends up resenting me.
-pH
Posted by ClaudiaTherese (Member # 923) on :
quote:Originally posted by MrSquicky: CT, When were you engaging in discourse? I went through them and I honestly can't find a post of yours where you addressed any of the points I made.
I honestly (non-flippantly, quite sincerely and seriously) don't think that anything I could say would help you in this matter. It certainly would not help me.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
quote:Because it is a meaningless trait to look for. That "wow" impulse means very little to my happiness and enjoyment of being with someone. Also, I can't trust myself to not be swayed in ways that would mar my better judgment.
The second part surely makes sense to me. I can completely see that.
The first part is one of the things I've been trying to get across. Is there any reason to believe that you are less likely to find the things that are meaningful to your happiness and enjoyment with the people you get the "wow" feeling from than those whom you don't?
There seems, to me, to be a subtle current of thinking that a person's qualities are a zero-sum game, such that a positive like high physical attractiveness must mean that they are less suitable in some other way. I just don't think that this is true.
Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
I must say, I definitely had a "wow" reaction the first time I saw Porter. Though he wasn't this "type" I speak of. Count me among the pleasantly surprised that CT mentioned. Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
Bev, seriously, maybe that's the difference here. Your bad experiences came from following the "wow" factor. My worst experiences have ALL come from when I DIDN'T follow the wow factor. Of course you don't trust it, and of course I think it is utterly essential.
Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
quote:Originally posted by pH: Does anyone here actually HAVE a set standard of physical attractiveness? I mean, I have preferences, but none of them are absolute deal-breakers. What do you look for physically, if anything?
Height often trips my "hot" indicator, but I've never actually dated a girl who was as tall as me (or taller), even in heels. Most have been significantly shorter than me, and it hasn't particularly mattered.
Added: Er, to be clear, I have no set standard, only whatever subconsciously trips my "hot" indicator.
Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
I must say, I definitely had a "wow" reaction the first time I saw Porter. Though he wasn't this "type" I speak of. Count me among the pleasantly surprised that CT mentioned.
But I have been in several relationships where the "wow" was not at all a part of the first impression. It had little bearing on the later development of my feelings.
Posted by ClaudiaTherese (Member # 923) on :
quote:Originally posted by katharina: Bev, seriously, maybe that's the difference here. Your bad experiences came from following the "wow" factor.
(Porter? -- not a critical point, but I must be misreading something (?))
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
Basically, I trust people to be the best judge for themselves of who would be a good partner. That's why telling someone what they should be attracted to is wrong: no one could possibly know better than themselves.
Everything else follows from that assumption. If that assumption isn't shared, then the rest of conversation may as well be in Klingon.
CT: Nothing in the world could persuade me to pass judgment on Hatracker's present relationships. I was going off of bev's stories of the "wow" factor getting into unpleasant situations.
Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
quote:Is there any reason to believe that you are less likely to find the things that are meaningful to your happiness and enjoyment with the people you get the "wow" feeling from than those whom you don't?
Less likely because it would be a much smaller pool of people. All the wonderful people I'd be missing out on! Could I find "everything" all in one package? Sure. But I think that is an unrealistic expectation, taking far more time effort than it is worth. I don't think it is worth holding out for, and I think to hold out for it, I would be shallow.
I actually am rather picky, just in different ways. For example, for some reason, when I lived in Texas, I never met a single guy in my entire high school that I would want to date. That particular pool for whatever reason was barren of appealing choices for me.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Here's an analogy that might help. Or it might not.
I am a meat and potato kind of girl. Give me a good hamburger and I am so happy. I tend, on my own, to gravitate towards that kind of restaurant. I do try to broaden my horizons and eat at other kinds of place and try new things. I often find things I really like. Sticky rice came as a delightful surprise.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
Right, but joining the site does not exclude you from meeting those other people. It can be done in addition to the other things you would already be doing.
Posted by pH (Member # 1350) on :
I found everything in one package.
I also have the philosophy that I should never get into a relationship unless each of us feels like the other is a little out of our league.
-pH
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
quote:But I think that is an unrealistic expectation, taking far more time effort than it is worth.
I think it's worth it.
Posted by ClaudiaTherese (Member # 923) on :
(I was just reading the post I quoted from you on the prior page as in response to beverly's post just before it -- which it looks like got double-posted, but nonetheless was there just before yours. But maybe your post was not in response to hers, but to something else.)
----------------- beverly Member # 6246 - posted March 26, 2007 01:20 PM
I must say, I definitely had a "wow" reaction the first time I saw Porter. Though he wasn't this "type" I speak of. Count me among the pleasantly surprised that CT mentioned. [Smile]
---
katharina Member # 827 - posted March 26, 2007 01:20 PM
Bev, seriously, maybe that's the difference here. Your bad experiences came from following the "wow" factor. My worst experiences have ALL come from when I DIDN'T follow the wow factor. Of course you don't trust it, and of course I think it is utterly essential.
Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
quote:Your bad experiences came from following the "wow" factor.
I dunno that I would call them bad experiences. Twice I let go guys that my heart was shouting for because my head said they would not be wise choices in the long run. (Both had this specific "wow" factor for me, as well as other things that meant far, far more to my heart.) They were hard choices, to be sure. But I believe I made the right choice in each case. Not bad experiences, bittersweet ones. Posted by pH (Member # 1350) on :
The Claw, I thought kat posted before she saw bev's post.
-pH
Posted by ClaudiaTherese (Member # 923) on :
quote:Originally posted by pH: The Claw, I thought kat posted before she saw bev's post.
-pH
Ah. I knew I must be missing something. I'd missed the prior "wow" post of beverly's. *nods
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
The "wow" is important to me. My problem with this site is that, I think, it assumes and forwards the notion that the "wow" is both based on looks and on certain cultural stereotypes of what those looks should be. We are conditioned to expect the "wow" from people who look a certain way.
In my experience, those are often wrong expectations.
Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
quote:It can be done in addition to the other things you would already be doing.
For me, the "muddling of the better judgement factor" isn't worth it.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:There seems, to me, to be a subtle current of thinking that a person's qualities are a zero-sum game
I thing reading CT's post with this perception is what has led to your confusion about her point. To her, it's not a zero sum game and, more importantly, it's not dependent on binary determinations such as shallow/not shallow. It's a complex system where each variable is infinitely adjustable and where each variable (such as focus on appearance) can effect each of the others to differing degrees.
CT therefore recognizes - and seems (to me) to have adequately caveated her statements - that any discussion of a single factor's effect on another's will by nature be imprecise with many exceptions to whatever general trends are identified. She has used phrases such as "to the extent" and "in general" "with many exceptions" to indicate this.
Any attempt to move from the very general things CT has said to any specific prediction about a particular person is an unintended application of what she has been saying, I think.
Since it seems that you are mostly interested in discussing such general implications as applied to specific situations (other than the hind-brain issue and a few other things), the conversation is an almost complete disconnect. You're literally discussing different things.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
boots, And I date all types of people, as, in fact, the things that really are important and make people special are more or less equally distributed regardless of attractiveness. To me, a response to that analogy would be that we're not talking about eating different types of food, but rather the same types of food in restaruants that are more or less aesthetically interesting.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
Maybe not everyone's better judgement gets muddled.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
MrSquicky, I was referring in that post only to the point that broadening one's experience can be "better" than narrowing it.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
And I responded with a point why I don't consider this particular case as fitting that example.
You can always state some vague general principle and make it sound good. I agree that broadening your experience can be good. I don't think anyone is going to disagree.
The points up for discussion are, as I see it, whether this particular case is one where broadening your experience (possibly forcibly) is good, bad, or indifferent and also whether this could actually be considered to be broadening one's experience.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
Dag, I find it difficult to see how a statement such as :
quote:I do think it would be a choice that is on a trend that makes less of you rather than more of you
(ephasis added) is not meant to apply to the specific person she was replying to.
Also, I don't think you've understood what I was (edit: trying to) get at very well.
Posted by ElJay (Member # 6358) on :
You've never heard of "the general you," Squick? That's what I thought she was using.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
quote:Originally posted by MrSquicky: And I responded with a point why I don't consider this particular case as fitting that example.
You can always state some vague general principle and make it sound good. I agree that broadening your experience can be good. I don't think anyone is going to disagree.
Ah, I thought you were disagreeing. My mistake.
quote:
The points up for discussion are, as I see it, whether this particular case is one where broadening your experience (possibly forcibly) is good, bad, or indifferent and also whether this could actually be considered to be broadening one's experience.
I think it was a question of whether this particular site was about choosing only what you already know you find attractive. As that wasn't really what interested me about the discussion, though, I'm happy to let it drop.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:Originally posted by MrSquicky: Dag, I find it difficult to see how a statement such as :
quote:I do think it would be a choice that is on a trend that makes less of you rather than more of you
(ephasis added) is not meant to apply to the specific person she was replying to.
Also, I don't think you've understood what I was (edit: trying to) get at very well.
After you steered the conversation away from the general to the specific. She stated a general trend. You converted that general trend into a statement about you:
quote:One thing did seem pretty clear to me though. That is, you seem pretty sure that the people on this site are shallow. As I said, I would consider joining this site in different circumstances. To my reading, I think you're pretty strongly implying that I am shallow.
In doing so, you oversimplified and misapplied her point in two ways. First, you converted her carefully caveatted explanation that her statements were general indications of degree along a vast continuum (as opposed to shallow/not shallow). Second, you converted her carefully caveatted explanation that her statements had many exceptions and did not apply to everyone on the site into a statement that applied to a specific individual.
quote:Also, I don't think you've understood what I was (edit: trying to) get at very well.
Very possible. I'm almost positive that you haven't understood what CT was trying to get at very well.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
ElJay, Considering I was addressed by name immediately prior to that statement:
quote:I certainly wouldn't say you were a worthless human being, or terrible, or a horrid person for joining that site, MrSquicky. I do think it would be a choice that is on a trend that makes less of you rather than more of you, but -- of course -- I make many such decisions myself, all the time. So it goes.
I didn't see it as a case of a general you.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
quote:You converted that general trend into a statement about you:
And, forgive me if I am wrong, but she did then specifically apply what she was saying to me, correct?
edit: That it was strongly implied that she would do so was a significant part of my point.
Posted by ElJay (Member # 6358) on :
Hmmm. I guess I was just reading all of her posts as general, since it seemed to me she had tried hard to make that clear. My mistake.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:And, forgive me if I am wrong, but she did then specifically apply what she was saying to me, correct?
CT has postulated some effect of infinite degree concerning that site and its participants. And she has explicitly stated that the effect would be widely variable. And, when she applied it to you, she applied it in that very general sense ("on a trend").
quote:edit: That it was strongly implied that she would do so was a significant part of my point.
Considering your original accusation was that she was "pretty strongly implying that I am shallow," your point was wrong. She did not imply that you were shallow.
Posted by ClaudiaTherese (Member # 923) on :
quote:Originally posted by Dagonee:
quote:And, forgive me if I am wrong, but she did then specifically apply what she was saying to me, correct?
CT has postulated some effect of infinite degree concerning that site and its participants. And she has explicitly stated that the effect would be widely variable. And, when she applied it to you, she applied it in that very general sense ("on a trend").
What Dagonee said. (And bless him.)
I made a general claim about why I would think of engaging in such a site to be shallow. You responded (somewhere along the way) to some interpretation of what I said in the particular.
I said no, this is not what I meant, and I tried to clarify it as well as restate it (in the general). You attributed a claim in the particular to me, and [you] responded to that.
Repeat several times.
And again.
And finally, when I was giving it my last shot at getting you to understand why what I was saying was not a blanket judgement about you in the particular, I restated my general claim, with an explanation (because you were pushing the interpretation of my words, insistantly, in the particular,and with reference to you specifically) of how I what I had said would not apply to you in the particular, but could possibly be stretched to you in the general -- as Dagonee noted, "And, when she applied it to you, she applied it in that very general sense ("on a trend")."
That was not something I had been implying all along. It was an attempt to show you how I had not been implying it all along -- that is, in the particular.
---
Edited to add: I can see that you may not be interested in discussions in the general. I think they often inform discussions in the particular, though they do not replace them. (And, too, the reverse, with the same caveat.) Perhaps this is a matter of individual preference and style.
[ March 26, 2007, 03:34 PM: Message edited by: ClaudiaTherese ]
Posted by ClaudiaTherese (Member # 923) on :
quote:Originally posted by ElJay: Hmmm. I guess I was just reading all of her posts as general, since it seemed to me she had tried hard to make that clear. My mistake.
I appreciate the charitable interpretation. *smile
I was striving for the general throughout (and aggressively, fervently), but felt obligated to clarify at the end the limits of what I was saying with respect to the particular specifically. This was because I felt an obligation to address having harmed MrSquicky through his misinterpretation [as he brought it up with respect to himself, specifically, in the particular, and attibuted a claim about it to me, directly] -- and so I did address him directly.
This seems to have been a further mistake. I make many of them. (Notably, though, I do not mean by this that I am a mistake, or that I only make mistakes, or even that I primarily make mistakes. Just in case that was not clear.)
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
CT, I owe you an apology. I reviewed what you posted in light of this different interpretation and it brought into relief a point that didn't jump out at me previously. That is, your use of "to the extent". I was reading that as more of an emphasis than a limiting condition. I could see how this misinterpretation must have been frustrating for you and I'd like to say I am sorry.
Posted by ClaudiaTherese (Member # 923) on :
quote:Originally posted by MrSquicky:
quote:You converted that general trend into a statement about you:
And, forgive me if I am wrong, but she did then specifically apply what she was saying to me, correct?
edit: That it was strongly implied that she would do so was a significant part of my point.
Exactly.
If I may say so, it felt like you were jumping up and down screaming, "Particulars! Particulars! Particulars!" Which I might have ignored, had you not also attributed a direct claim about you to me.
I can't have addressed that (and maybe I shouldn't, looking back, but that's hindsight) without talking about you directly. Even though I hadn't been all along. As you stated, "That it was strongly implied that she would do so was a significant part of my point."
[deleted for crank, snippiness, and snark]
Posted by ClaudiaTherese (Member # 923) on :
Thanks, MrSquicky. I am sorry I was [so] hard to understand, but I am very sorry that I devolved into deliberate hurtfulness. I've deleted it from my former post (unless, of course, I should leave it up for the record and take my rightful blows).
[ March 26, 2007, 03:54 PM: Message edited by: ClaudiaTherese ]
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
CT, I don't know that you were that hard to understand. I just screwed up. I think I got on the wrong track from the first post and then it got frustrating that it seemed that you were not addressing anything I had to say and retreating into vague generalities. I see now that you were likely dealing with the same sort of thing (which I started) and that my interpretation of your responses were incorrect.
The best I can offer is that I am very much not at my best these last few days.
Posted by ClaudiaTherese (Member # 923) on :
quote:Originally posted by MrSquicky: The best I can offer is that I am very much not at my best these last few days.
Ah, me too. We're getting old. Or maybe it's just the swing of the pendulum. *smile
Difficulties in my personal life have also made me crabbier than I can ever remember.
Posted by erosomniac (Member # 6834) on :
Post outright apologies, I don't think anyone's going to insist either of you leave any unnecessarily scathing remarks to take your "rightful blows." Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
MrSquicky, I hope things get better for you.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
Oh, it's no big deal. I've just been pretty sick and not sleeping.
Posted by ClaudiaTherese (Member # 923) on :
Me, too [with reference to kmboots' post]. I am quite impressed with you today (in the good way! ), and I'll keep you in my thoughts.
Take care.
Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
quote:Maybe not everyone's better judgement gets muddled.
That is fine. Note the "for me" in my statement.
Twitterpation is a blissfully happy state for me, but it makes me enough of a fruitcake that I am grateful for the clarity of mind that I have out of its sway. (See my landmark for details) I am aware that this is probably not true for the vast majority of the population.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote:Originally posted by katharina: Basically, I trust people to be the best judge for themselves of who would be a good partner.
I think this is patently untrue, and the current divorce rate (as well as my own experiences and those of many friends (yeah, yeah, anecdotes =! data)) bears it out.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
Rivka: Easy enough solution, eliminate all legal possibility of divorce, let parents arrange marriages for their children, and make sure the society frowns on divorce as a rule.
Divorce rates should plummet.
:singing: Match maker match maker make me a match! :/singing:
Posted by camus (Member # 8052) on :
quote:Originally posted by rivka:
quote:Originally posted by katharina: Basically, I trust people to be the best judge for themselves of who would be a good partner.
I think this is patently untrue, and the current divorce rate (as well as my own experiences and those of many friends (yeah, yeah, anecdotes =! data)) bears it out.
I think other people can sometimes see more clearly what makes someone a bad partner. I do not think other people can ever be better than the particular individual at determining if someone is a good partner.
Added: For example, I rarely disagree with my parents' opinions of people that would be bad partners for me. I almost always disagree with their opinions of who would be a good partner for me.
Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
Another little anecdote: I dated a guy who was nearly completely the opposite of my "ideal" in looks. I remember before we started dating describing my ideal to him, and him looking crestfallen. I remember how unremarkable my first impression of him was.
Then I remember how over the summer home from college, I plastered my entire wall with photos of him, mooning over just how gorgeous he was!
Again, I am still rather picky. But when I fall in love, I fall in love with the person first and they become beautiful to me.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:Originally posted by MrSquicky: CT, I owe you an apology. I reviewed what you posted in light of this different interpretation and it brought into relief a point that didn't jump out at me previously. That is, your use of "to the extent". I was reading that as more of an emphasis than a limiting condition. I could see how this misinterpretation must have been frustrating for you and I'd like to say I am sorry.
Very impressive, MrSquicky.
Posted by Megan (Member # 5290) on :
quote:Originally posted by beverly: But when I fall in love, I fall in love with the person first and they become beautiful to me.
This describes me, too. Before my husband and I met in person, he sent me a picture, and I remember thinking, "Eh, alright, I guess."
Once I met him and started to get to know him, everything about him was attractive to me.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote:Originally posted by camus:
quote:Originally posted by rivka:
quote:Originally posted by katharina: Basically, I trust people to be the best judge for themselves of who would be a good partner.
I think this is patently untrue, and the current divorce rate (as well as my own experiences and those of many friends (yeah, yeah, anecdotes =! data)) bears it out.
I think other people can sometimes see more clearly what makes someone a bad partner. I do not think other people can ever be better than the particular individual at determining if someone is a good partner.
Added: For example, I rarely disagree with my parents' opinions of people that would be bad partners for me. I almost always disagree with their opinions of who would be a good partner for me.
I wasn't the one who suggested parental opinions. That was BlackBlade.
I think that overall, parents are among the least likely to make good judgements in these situations, as their own egos/issues/etc. are so likely to cloud judgement. (Not true in every case, obviously. My parents are very good in that regard. But in many cases, I think going by the parents' recommendations would be even worse than those of the person themselves.)
You need someone who is an interested bystander -- close enough to know you well, but able to keep your needs separate from their own preferences. A good friend, a mentor, a spiritual advisor. Preferably, one of each.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
I think it's like democracy: the worst system of government except for all the others.
People are worst choosers except for all the others.
Specifically, I am a better judge of who I should date than anyone else. By a million times, my worst experiences have been when I did what I didn't want but other wanted for me. My best has been when I finally was completely honest and waited for someone that fits both my head and my heart.
Besides, I'd a million times rather suffer for my own choices should there be any suffering rather than suffer for someone else's choices that were thrust upon me.
---
MPH: I'm home now, and I have to tell you, I'm having the hardest time writing it. I think it's because it is somewhat anarchic - the only binding laws are literally the commandments and the actual laws. But our society and things run on a million expectations that do not carry the weight of laws of either God or man. I feel fine about ignoring them at my own discretion, but it feels weird about explaining it. I don't want to be a missionary for anarchy.
I mean, I came up with it after feeling abandoned by everything. I think I was, except for the church. My mother was dead, my dad was angry with me (for not marrying someone he thought I should, incidentally), my friends had all left me, I had tossed aside my dreams because they were deamed inappropriate and yet the bargain wasn't worth it. Lamentations 1:2
It's the result of the one "I have lost everything - what do I do now." I am no longer in the same position - I have things to lose now, and I know that others do as well. In my happiness as being someone who has a stake in society and something to lose, I have this...I can survive if I lose everything. It's happened before. If it happens again, I know what to do, and I'll be okay.
There's this lyric from Wicked: Too long I've been afraid of / Losing love I guess I've lost / Well, if that's love / It comes at much too high a cost.
I think following the shoulds at the expense of my own judgement and feeling is much, much too high a cost. THAT's what isn't worth it to me.
But...I can't evangelize it. It works for me because I found it on the shore of the river, like in Watership Down. I don't want to evangelize it becauase I don't want it to be another Should - a nice philosophy that anyone follows but the peace doesn't come with it. I can't promise that the philosophy gives to anyone what it gives to me, so I don't want to say it and make myself responsible for the consequences. Does that make sense?
Not that this is personal at all, but I'm thinking of Hatrack in general. I don't know who will read it, and I'm this odd combination of anarchic and conservative at the same time. I'm all for iconoclasm (and in love with an iconoclast), but I don't want to encourage it. It's one of things that has to come from inside.
Forgive me for the combination of coyness and arrogance I am fully aware was in that post. And please accept my apologies - I don't think I can write it out. I hope this is okay.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote:. . . rather than suffer for someone else's choices that were thrust upon me.
Absolutely. I think it is safe to assume that any opinion that is thrust upon you is not from an uninvolved party. Outside opinions should be sought, not shoved down your throat.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by rivka:
quote:Originally posted by camus:
quote:Originally posted by rivka:
quote:Originally posted by katharina: Basically, I trust people to be the best judge for themselves of who would be a good partner.
I think this is patently untrue, and the current divorce rate (as well as my own experiences and those of many friends (yeah, yeah, anecdotes =! data)) bears it out.
I think other people can sometimes see more clearly what makes someone a bad partner. I do not think other people can ever be better than the particular individual at determining if someone is a good partner.
Added: For example, I rarely disagree with my parents' opinions of people that would be bad partners for me. I almost always disagree with their opinions of who would be a good partner for me.
I wasn't the one who suggested parental opinions. That was BlackBlade.
I think that overall, parents are among the least likely to make good judgements in these situations, as their own egos/issues/etc. are so likely to cloud judgement. (Not true in every case, obviously. My parents are very good in that regard. But in many cases, I think going by the parents' recommendations would be even worse than those of the person themselves.)
You need someone who is an interested bystander -- close enough to know you well, but able to keep your needs separate from their own preferences. A good friend, a mentor, a spiritual advisor. Preferably, one of each.
Any suggestions as to who that someone might be? If you are a girl looking for advice about a future husband I think your girlfriends are possibly the WORST source of advice. They could so easily want the same guy and thus discourage you from dating them. There is the terrible problem of dating one of your girlfriends former flames, its rare to find a girl who does not let that cloud her judgement.
I've always said, "Your girlfriend's girlfriends as your worst enemies." I've seen that truth confirmed time and time again.
But then again who is altruistic across the board? If another guy friend acts as your adviser they could get big brother syndrome where nobody is good enough for their little sister.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
I recommend (based on recommendations made to me) a friend who has been married for at least a year or two and appears to be happy in their marriage.
I agree that fellow singles are not generally a good source of that kind of advice -- although I have some who I would listen to about certain issues.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
Personally, I could easily have entrusted that role to my mother, had I lived in a culture where that was appropriate.
Posted by pH (Member # 1350) on :
BB, for me, girls tend to give bad advice because they have a completely different mindset from myself. I had to stop speaking to a girl at one point because she wouldn't stop ranting about how SHE would never put up with a boyfriend being gone so much! Who does he think he is! Maybe he's cheating on you! And so forth.
What's funny is that girls melt when I tell them about the really sweet things he does. But then they HATE HIM as soon as I'm upset. Which maybe they're trying to be supportive, but I really can't handle that kind of "support."
-pH
Posted by MightyCow (Member # 9253) on :
CT: I'm sorry if I caused you undue grief. Unless I specifically addressed the post to you, I was speaking in general. I understand the confusion, because reading your posts (among others) often got my mind going in the direction it was when I posted, so my posts often connected with yours in some way, even though they weren't a direct discussion.
Not to CT only:
I think in dating particularly, but often times in the world in general as well, deciding that people are something, in this case "shallow" is just as limiting to you as it is to them, if not more so.
Having worked in a dating company for several years, and having dated quite a bit myself, my intent was to caution against categorizing people based on limited information.
It's very possible that some of or even many of the people using the hotties-only website are limiting their choices in an unconstructive way. It's also very possible that some or even many are well aware of their needs when it comes to dating, and are making an informed choice in an effort to maximize their chances to find a suitable partner.
Bottom line: I find it silly to make superficial judgments about others, based on the fact that you (non-specific you) feel they are being superficial.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
I remember when my younger brother came to me for such advice. I gave it to him, and he was appreciative. He went against my advice, and it was the right decision.
-------
quote:I think it's like democracy: the worst system of government except for all the others.
Ooh! I like that analogy, and I think I agree with it.
The majority of the time, things are better with democracy, even though sometimes the choice made isn't the best choice.
Also, all choices and all decision-making strategies aren't equal -- some will produce better results than others.
------
quote:And please accept my apologies - I don't think I can write it out. I hope this is okay.
I'm disappointed, but not in you, just that I don't get to read it.
I can't say that I understand, but I'm OK with that. I appreciate you trying, and I appreciate you trying to explain why you can't.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote: I think following the shoulds at the expense of my own judgement and feeling is much, much too high a cost. THAT's what isn't worth it to me.
You realize that this is precisely how I feel about religion, right? That it's one honkin' list of arbitrary, third-party "shoulds?" Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
Tom: Yeah, I know. I understand the feelings in general. In the case of religion, though, I do feel it - I mean, I feel the answers to my prayers, I believe it, I've been convinced by what...what Joseph Smith (and many others - Matt knows who) called the gospel tasting good. The Lord is an authority I accept because it feels right down to my bones.
----
MPH: I can't take credit for the quote - it's from Winston Churchill. I love it, though, and I think it applies here perfectly.
There isn't much more to it than what I've said already. Thank you for understanding.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
Kat -- I knew the quote from Winston Churchill, but I was responding with delight to applying it in this situation.
In other words, the majority of the time, people will be better off going with their gut/spark as to who they like, even though sometimes the choice made won't be the best choice.
Also, in both situations, all choices, criteria, and decision-making schemes aren't equal -- some will produce better choices than others.
I'm not sure if I completely believe that, but I like it nonetheless.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Angst]](graemlins/angst.gif)
![[ROFL]](graemlins/rofl.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Grumble]](graemlins/grumble.gif)
![[Cry]](graemlins/cry.gif)
![[Eek!]](eek.gif)
![[Confused]](confused.gif)
![[Dont Know]](graemlins/dontknow.gif)