Physical Attribute Selectiveness

[Shining One]

This is a debate I had a while ago with a friend, but this recent thread has brought it to mind. Imagine this scenario: Person A is looking for three specific physical attributes in a person. When all of the attributes are factored in, 30% of the single population meet these requirements. Person B is looking for a single physical attribute, but only 20% of the single population meets this requirement. Who would you say is more selective?

[lovephule]

I vote person B

[CautiouslyOptimistic]

I vote person A.

[Steve Mason]

I would say that if at the end of the day 20-30% of the population is attractive to you, you're doing pretty well and should have no problems finding a relationship.

 

For some people it's less than 1%! Now that's selective!!

[Mysterio]

Here is how attractiveness works with me now.

 

I see a woman in her 20- 60's. The first thing is the face more than anything. The more baby faced, bright, smiling, happy she looks. The more I will gravitate towards her.

 

When I interact with her the less leg work I have to do with her. The more I am attracted to her.

 

This may sound kind of off. I know that there is a lot of men that can't be a one woman man. The way I am. I see a lot of women more cold and aloof. Its like they want sparks and they can't build a foundation.

 

All the guys I know that are single are straight up. We don't just want to just have sex with women and then leave them, when they get pregnant.

[rushed]

Person B is more selective. Out of 10 people, he/she'd find only 2 that meet their requirements while Person A would find 3.

Edited November 21, 2017 by rushed
made pronouns less gender specific

[road]

Person B is more selective. Out of 10 people, he/she'd find only 2 that meet their requirements while Person A would find 3.

 

There is always a smartass (mathematical genius) in the crowd

to make things simple for us challenged people here.

 

Put math aside, for everyone is picky. The level of pickiness is

not the issue. What is important is their ability to pull in someone

that they would accept.

[Els]

I can't answer - I just can't imagine having a specific physical attribute that you absolutely NEED to have.

 

At the end of the day though, I think most of us are very selective. The question is just WHAT we are selective about. I probably only find about 3-5% of the male population attractive, although my requirements are rarely physical (beyond "don't be obese" and "maintain decent hygiene").

[Michelle ma Belle]

I can't answer - I just can't imagine having a specific physical attribute that you absolutely NEED to have.

 

At the end of the day though, I think most of us are very selective. The question is just WHAT we are selective about. I probably only find about 3-5% of the male population attractive, although my requirements are rarely physical (beyond "don't be obese" and "maintain decent hygiene").

 

I second this.

[Larryville]

At the end of the day though, I think most of us are very selective. The question is just WHAT we are selective about. I probably only find about 3-5% of the male population attractive, although my requirements are rarely physical (beyond "don't be obese" and "maintain decent hygiene").

 

I have always thought something was kinda wrong with me or that I was insanely picky, but there is a specific facial look, particularly the eyes that is very important to me.

 

Now I’m specifically speaking from an OLD browsing profiles.

 

I equate this to the type of voice they would have or if they would have a pleasant non-confrontational personality.

 

Certainly dress or style, hair, body matters too but I can browse thru hundreds of profiles and not see anyone with that facial demeanor that would make me want to take a closer look at someone.

 

Now in person there are just some ladies who radiate a positive vibe, how they walk, eye contact, smile (not in a flirting matter) just being friendly.

I am with MMB, I think a very small percentage of women I see on dating sites my age (I’m 54) are attractive.

 

It is generational, those my age or older had moms who did not leave the house in curlers, pajama bottoms, flip flops, hair looking like a nest ect. Yes dudes are jacked up too because they have bought into this anti-masculine thing where looking like a migrant is acceptable even when pursuing women.

 

Our individual tastes has something to do with who are adult role models were (in terms of looks) mother, relatives, teachers, friends ect.

[Michelle ma Belle]

I think dating online is very different than dating in real life.

 

Online dating is notorious for being very superficial. All we have to go by, initially anyway, are pictures and if you're lucky, a few thoughtful words strung together that somehow perfectly captures who they are. Not an easy feat.

 

So preferences, in terms of physical likes and desires, play a huge role in online dating. It's a virtual catalog with endless options just a swipe away. Even when you find someone your eyes approve of, texting isn't any better at really knowing a person beyond just their physical bits and pieces.

 

Dating in real life, although physical preferences and selectiveness are still alive and well, there are often numerous intangible qualities that play a part in attraction as mentioned by Larryville. Things you can't pick up in a picture or profile bio or text.

 

I have found that I'm much more selective when dating online than when dating in real life. I feel like there is a lot more work involved weeding out quality partners who I feel are best suited for me that goes well beyond just how great their selfies are.

 

Whereas meeting someone organically, it seems to flow more naturally, where those other attributes kick in often elevating attraction with men I might have never considered on looks alone had I seen them online. The process is shorter and infinitely 'easier' in my humble experience.

 

And although my tolerance for BS holds steady at zero regardless, I find it wears thin pretty quickly whenever I've dated online versus when I've met someone organically. That may speak to the feeling that online dating feels more like a game than anything else these days.

 

Just my two cents.

Edited November 21, 2017 by Michelle ma Belle

[Shining One]

To add some clarity to the topic, I'm referring specifically to physical attributes that can be clearly defined and are usually data fields on OLD sites. These include: Hair Color, Eye Color, Height, Body Type, and Race. Specific facial looks are harder to qualify, so I did not include them.

[Shining One]

I can't answer - I just can't imagine having a specific physical attribute that you absolutely NEED to have.

Apparently, you can imagine.

"don't be obese"

This is a physical requirement. A lot of people may meet it, but it's a requirement nonetheless.

[RecentChange]

I am SO curious what these requirements are! Its anonymous - so maybe tell us?

 

I have would have 3...

 

1. Don't be obese - in my area, (3rd lowest rate in the county) that leaves 81.8% of the population.

Obesity Rates for States, Metro Areas

 

 

2. Be as tall, or taller than me - I am 5'6". Being as the average height for american males is 5'10" - again, the majority of the male population should be in this parameter.

 

3. Be within 10 years of my age - up or down. - Not sure how to quantify that figure, but at 39 - that should be a pretty high percentage.

 

What features are they looking for that 20% - 30% of the male population posses?

[chinadiary]

Be my height. Don't like tall men.

 

Big hands. Mmmm.

 

Beard? Please?

 

The rest, whatever.

 

Clever, funny, kind.

[carhill]

I'm a bit confused. Is there a deplorables version of this question? Is this along the looks theory continuum?

 

In any event, IMO anyone who's running looks calculations in their brain is too selective for me. Pass.

[Shining One]

I am SO curious what these requirements are! Its anonymous - so maybe tell us?

This situation is entirely hypothetical for simplicity's sake, but it's based on a real debate I had with a female friend. One of us required more attributes, but more of the population had those combined attributes. The other required less attributes, but less of the population had those attributes. I'm curious as to which person forum members consider more selective.

 

I deliberately chose not to include the specific attributes in order to avoid gender being a factor in responses.

Edited November 22, 2017 by Shining One

[Els]

Apparently, you can imagine.This is a physical requirement. A lot of people may meet it, but it's a requirement nonetheless.

 

 

Is "don't be obese" really a "specific physical attribute" though? To use a comparison, I'd say that a guy who only wants to date blondes or women with long hair has a "specific physical attribute" that he needs. But if the guy's requirement is just "don't be bald", is that REALLY a specific physical requirement?

[Sanman]

Is "don't be obese" really a "specific physical attribute" though? To use a comparison, I'd say that a guy who only wants to date blondes or women with long hair has a "specific physical attribute" that he needs. But if the guy's requirement is just "don't be bald", is that REALLY a specific physical requirement?

 

Depends on if you're bald. As a guy with thinning hair, bald is also a relative term. So is obese for that matter. Based on BMI, I am overwight. Based on looks, most say I look average. The downside to broader shoulders and a wider frame.

[Els]

Depends on if you're bald. As a guy with thinning hair, bald is also a relative term. So is obese for that matter. Based on BMI, I am overwight. Based on looks, most say I look average. The downside to broader shoulders and a wider frame.

 

Hey Sanman! Long time no see.

 

I guess my definition of a "specific" requirement is not solely based on the % of people who satisfy it, but also the % of people who have the requirement. I mean, if we wanted to be really pedantic, we could say that "person has a penis" or "person has a vagina" is technically a physical requirement as well... except that something like 99% of heterosexual men and women have that requirement. So it isn't specific. OTOH, something like "6 inch+ penis" would be a "specific physical requirement".

 

By "obese" I meant medically obese (BMI of 30+ and corresponding body fat % based on average build), and by "bald" I meant a woman who keeps her head completely shaved to the scalp.

[road]

I am SO curious what these requirements are! Its anonymous - so maybe tell us?

 

I have would have 3...

 

1. Don't be obese - in my area, (3rd lowest rate in the county) that leaves 81.8% of the population.

Obesity Rates for States, Metro Areas

 

 

2. Be as tall, or taller than me - I am 5'6". Being as the average height for american males is 5'10" - again, the majority of the male population should be in this parameter.

 

3. Be within 10 years of my age - up or down. - Not sure how to quantify that figure, but at 39 - that should be a pretty high percentage.

 

What features are they looking for that 20% - 30% of the male population posses?

 

Very general requirements that you have.

 

 

Me:

 

No weight issues.

 

5' 1" to 5' 9" Can be tall as me but not taller.

 

Brunet over a blonde, though the right blonde could

possibly win out, never a red head. Hair length the longer

the better. No Nordic white/pale skin.

 

32 A to a 36 C.

 

Though the number one thing and the first thing is her

face and smile. Does not mean look super model hot to

all, just me.

[Poutrew]

In the long run, it doesn't matter. Case in point, I know a woman, mid 40's, divorced. Health nut. Kept herself in shape by regularly working out at the gym, long runs, very physical. Total vegetarian. The man she wound up marrying - short, fat, balding, meat eater. Now she is, too. They are very happy with each other, too. Never in a million years would I have thought she would wind up with such a guy, but it happened. And, that's it - when it happens, it happens. NO use trying to over think it...

[Shining One]

The majority of people seem to be missing the question. Who is more selective: The person who has more requirements but accepts a larger portion of the target population (Person A) or the person with less requirements but accepts less of the target population (Person B)?

[Els]

The majority of people seem to be missing the question. Who is more selective: The person who has more requirements but accepts a larger portion of the target population (Person A) or the person with less requirements but accepts less of the target population (Person B)?

 

I did answer it. Everyone is selective. Physical attributes are just a part of that selectivity for some people. You can't call someone more or less selective solely based on the information you gave.

[SolG]

I did answer it. Everyone is selective. Physical attributes are just a part of that selectivity for some people. You can't call someone more or less selective solely based on the information you gave.

 

Exactly! I'll use my own selectivity as an example. I'm bi and have a soft spot for tall blondes - 6'+ for guys, 5' 9"+ for girls is what floats my boat on first sight. So statistically speaking in that dimension alone I'm limiting myself to about 15 per cent of men, and 5 per cent of women. Pretty selective huh?

 

But wait, there's more! Venus/Adonis catches my eye, but oh no... mullet, slouchy and morose, oufit screams some demographic I know won't work for me. Unselected. Or Adonis/Venus sashays over... opens their mouth and oh no... out spills moronic babble, or they reveal themselves a bigot (I can't stand people that can't have a good debate and respect differing views), or it's obvious we're just not going to gel for some other reason. Unselected. Things are looking bleak.

 

But wait, there's even more again! I run into almost Venus/Adonis, not my absolute example of the ideal physical criteria. But they're funny, confident, comfortable in their own skin, can debate like a boss, passionate about life and sure theirs has meaning. Selected! And my panties are probably getting wet!

 

I don't deviate too much from my physical ideal, but I do deviate. Attraction is generally multi-dimensional. No idea what percentage of the population that ends up making me 'open' to, or what my corresponding selectivity rating is. And I don't care because I do just fine.

 

I don't think I'm unusual in that respect. Physical attributes just put someone in a relative starting point on the grid, it doesn't determine who wins the race. Phyical selectivity is rarely the sole determinant of overall selectivity. And it is so individual. That's why I think it's so difficult to answer your question.

Edited November 24, 2017 by SolG