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."
Posts: 4313 | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
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)
posted
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.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 3950 | Registered: Mar 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 1256 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
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?
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 3950 | Registered: Mar 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
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?
Posts: 4313 | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 3950 | Registered: Mar 2006
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 1158 | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 1947 | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 3950 | Registered: Mar 2006
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 16551 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 5462 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 16551 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
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."
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 1947 | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 16551 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
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.)
Posts: 21182 | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 7954 | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 16551 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 1947 | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
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?
posted
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.
Posts: 16551 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 7050 | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 3003 | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 4313 | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'm going with ero on that one. My understanding of shallow has always been that it meant "Lacking emotional or intellectual depth"
Posts: 3003 | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
posted
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.
Posts: 7050 | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 14017 | Registered: May 2000
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[ROFL]](graemlins/rofl.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
)![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
