posted
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.
Posts: 499 | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged |
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.
posted
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.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 7050 | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
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.)
Posts: 7050 | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 7050 | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I agree that the consequences are vastly different. I'm not sure I agree with the first point.
Posts: 7050 | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 4313 | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged |
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.
posted
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.
Posts: 3950 | Registered: Mar 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 3546 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 7050 | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 3546 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 3950 | Registered: Mar 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
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.
Posts: 16551 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 3354 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 16551 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 7050 | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged |
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.
posted
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.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
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*
Posts: 1960 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
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?
Posts: 7050 | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged |
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]
Posts: 1594 | Registered: Apr 2006
| IP: Logged |
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.
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.
Posts: 14017 | Registered: May 2000
| IP: Logged |
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.
posted
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.
posted
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.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
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.
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Grumble]](graemlins/grumble.gif)
![[Cry]](graemlins/cry.gif)
