complication Posted February 19, 2009 Posted February 19, 2009 I'm speaking more for visual. If you go a number or two what you'd prefer, you'll be amazed by how well it works out. Reason? You'll have more success. And beauty fades quickly, personality is a keeper.
CommitmentPhobe Posted February 19, 2009 Posted February 19, 2009 What happens if you lower your standards and don't get anywhere? you are going to be left feeling like crap. I think this is part of it, men on the whole can take rejection off of women perceived to be out of their league, but from those they don't consider as worthy is a huge ego blow.
BCCA Posted February 19, 2009 Posted February 19, 2009 The problem with lowering your standards is that it does not mean you'll meet someone sooner or better. And then you've lowered your standards and if you got dumped, you would feel twice as horrible. Lets face it, if you dont think someone is at least somewhat attractive, its not going to work. Even if they arent the most gorgeous person you've ever laid eyes on, you have to at least be ok with them enough to want to be intimate and introduce them to your friends and family. A woman could have the best personality ever, and be great to talk to and hang out, but if I didnt think she was attractive, thats as far as it would go. And then, youre wasting that persons time.
Dexter Morgan Posted February 19, 2009 Posted February 19, 2009 What happens if you lower your standards and don't get anywhere? Maybe its because the other party has their standards too.
blondesmiler Posted February 19, 2009 Posted February 19, 2009 If you lower your standards, you probably will always be looking round the corner for something better and never feel settled for what you have right there infront of you. But agree, in the most part, personality is a keeper but also beauty isn't just about looks.
CommitmentPhobe Posted February 19, 2009 Posted February 19, 2009 Maybe its because the other party has their standards too. lmao good point I also agree that you would be looking round the corner for someone else, I mean how can you be happy with someone you consider to be of a "lower standard"
chris250 Posted February 19, 2009 Posted February 19, 2009 I never introduce my girlfriends to my parents. It's not necessary. My relationship is my personal business. And yes I agree with lowering my standards. I'm slowly doing that right now. Lowering my standards gives me more luxury to backslide on my physical appearance. For example if I date overweight women then I won't have to worry about staying in good physical shape. I can stop exercising. She can't find my obesity unattractive without being a hypocrite about it. Why would she expect a guy who stays in shape if she's not in shape herself? At least I don't expect more from a woman than what I'm willing to bring to the table. If anything I expect less. If I'm making 80,000$ a year then I expect her to make less than 40,000$ a year at her job.
movingonandon Posted February 19, 2009 Posted February 19, 2009 Lets face it, if you dont think someone is at least somewhat attractive, its not going to work. Even if they arent the most gorgeous person you've ever laid eyes on, you have to at least be ok with them enough to want to be intimate and introduce them to your friends and family. A woman could have the best personality ever, and be great to talk to and hang out, but if I didnt think she was attractive, thats as far as it would go. And then, youre wasting that persons time. But that's the definition of "lowering your standards" (and that's a good thing). I think that the label "lowering standards" is innacurate, since it implies that you have some specific - agressive- target in mind, and if the person you're with misses it, then you're lowering your standard. That's a the glass is half-empty reasoning, if you will. There is a subtle, but important difference in starting high vs low. My approach is the exact opposite (the glass full) approach. Instead of going after some elusive "high targets", I think it makes more sense to define what are your minimum tresholds (of attractiveness, intelligence, kindness, etc.). So, the first person that meets them, I stick with. I think this approach makes it much easier to meet someone nice and compatible versus starting with a high target and a checklist. The point is that if a person meets my minimm tresholds, I will feel no need to keep looking around for somebody "better". There will always be someone better and (often attainable) out there, but is it worth it to expend that much energy instead of enjoying a more easily attainable and already good companion?
Isolde Posted February 19, 2009 Posted February 19, 2009 What seems to work well for many people is dating someone who's looks don't immediately catch your eye but who you still find reasonably attractive.
movingonandon Posted February 19, 2009 Posted February 19, 2009 What seems to work well for many people is dating someone who's looks don't immediately catch your eye but who you still find reasonably attractive. Yes, exactly. I could have passed my current girlfriend on the street. 3-4 months later I think that she's the hottest and the cutest thing ever.
movingonandon Posted February 19, 2009 Posted February 19, 2009 If you lower your standards, you probably will always be looking round the corner for something better and never feel settled for what you have right there infront of you. But agree, in the most part, personality is a keeper but also beauty isn't just about looks. I think this is misleading: it is precisely when you approach dating with the "high standards" mentality when you always wonder if you couldn't do better - this will happen no matter whi are you with. While if you approach dating with that "these are the satisfactory tresholds of qualities I'm looking in a person" mentality, when you find such person, you completely shut down any looking around and stick with them (unless you have an entitlement attitude, in which case you will never be happy anyway). It's the same like going into debt to afford a slightly nicer car... (High marginal cost, low marginal benefit.)
Isolde Posted February 19, 2009 Posted February 19, 2009 I think this is misleading: it is precisely when you approach dating with the "high standards" mentality when you always wonder if you couldn't do better - this will happen no matter whi are you with. While if you approach dating with that "these are the satisfactory tresholds of qualities I'm looking in a person" mentality, when you find such person, you completely shut down any looking around and stick with them (unless you have an entitlement attitude, in which case you will never be happy anyway). It's the same like going into debt to afford a slightly nicer car... (High marginal cost, low marginal benefit.) But you have to get to the point where you want to stop looking--ie, you have to fall in love with the person. So, even if you lower your visual standards, it's not easy to find someone you can get to that point with, right?
BCCA Posted February 19, 2009 Posted February 19, 2009 I guess my issue with this is that it's not as though most of us are passing up great people with so-so looks and an awesome personality in search of super models. I think anyone has a threshold of attractiveness, and you almost dont even have to think about it when you meet someone. Furthermore, Ive never met someone I found unattractive initially and then later decided they were actually cute. I think better advice would be to forget about standards and judge each person you meet individually.
Isolde Posted February 20, 2009 Posted February 20, 2009 I guess my issue with this is that it's not as though most of us are passing up great people with so-so looks and an awesome personality in search of super models. I think anyone has a threshold of attractiveness, and you almost dont even have to think about it when you meet someone. Furthermore, Ive never met someone I found unattractive initially and then later decided they were actually cute. I think better advice would be to forget about standards and judge each person you meet individually. YES, YES, YES. This is why I stated that it makes sense to go for people who might not catch your eye initially but where you still find some sort of attraction and room to grow more attracted. I think the vast majority of people already do this.
movingonandon Posted February 20, 2009 Posted February 20, 2009 But you have to get to the point where you want to stop looking--ie, you have to fall in love with the person. So, even if you lower your visual standards, it's not easy to find someone you can get to that point with, right? Well, I'm not talking just about the visual standards, but the whole set of keu variables. It is pretty difficult to find someone who meets them all, let alone *exceeds* them, even on one dimension (e.g. attractiveness), while keeping the others at least constant. My point is that once you find such a person, it is the most rational decision to stop looking and yes - fall in love with them (both of these are conscious decision). Otherwise you set yourself up for disapointment if you keep looking just to see by how much can you exceed your minimum standards. Purely mathematically speaking, it is pretty hard to find a solution that satisfies a number of constraints (e.g. your criteria/standards)simultaneously. So once you find such a 'solution', the most sensible thing is to stop looking, because even if you find someone performing better on one of the constraints (e.g. attractiveness) it is quite possible that they're not doing quite as well on other characteristics, etc., you get the idea. This time is much better spend investing in this relationship, rather than wondering if you could "do better". In the immortal words of Fat Wallers (?), "Baby, if you gotta ask, you ain't got it"
movingonandon Posted February 20, 2009 Posted February 20, 2009 YES, YES, YES. This is why I stated that it makes sense to go for people who might not catch your eye initially but where you still find some sort of attraction and room to grow more attracted. I think the vast majority of people already do this. well, sure, but that's such a wide grey area that it is almost a moot point --> I find 95% of girls that are not overweight or disfigured in some other way to be attractive enough...
Isolde Posted February 20, 2009 Posted February 20, 2009 well, sure, but that's such a wide grey area that it is almost a moot point --> I find 95% of girls that are not overweight or disfigured in some other way to be attractive enough... I think most guys are pickier than you, though.
voldigicam Posted February 20, 2009 Posted February 20, 2009 Criteria and checklists and logic simply don't work. Married another Ph.D. scientist, the perfect couple. Everyone said so. Until I recovered consciousness, and she was there waiting for me to finish bleeding out. Seriously. Second wife, who started as bleach blond hairdresser marrying someone with a couple of doctorate is MUCH more compatible and easy going. I knew it right away, too, as did she. Never did make any sense. Watch those criteria.
BCCA Posted February 20, 2009 Posted February 20, 2009 wondering if you could "do better". That's 90% of women in their 20's
BCCA Posted February 20, 2009 Posted February 20, 2009 I think most guys are pickier than you, though. Overweight is also a matter of opinion, and usually, judged in relation to your own weight. And trust me, there are a lot of women who arent fat or disfigured that arent attractive. If you dont think so, Im moving to wherever you are
movingonandon Posted February 20, 2009 Posted February 20, 2009 Overweight is also a matter of opinion, and usually, judged in relation to your own weight. And trust me, there are a lot of women who arent fat or disfigured that arent attractive. If you dont think so, Im moving to wherever you are Well, I used disfigured in broad sense, to include out-of-whack unfortunate facial features as well. I'm not exageratting to make a point though - i seriously think that most women who I encounter on a daily basis are "attractive enough"... As for moving where I am, two words: latinas, baby . Okay, four more words: southern belles too, baby
movingonandon Posted February 20, 2009 Posted February 20, 2009 Another thing to consider is that even if you end up with someone very hot, sooner or later you *will* get used to them and tired of them, so you will still need to snap yourself out of it. My ex was very hottt by all common contemporary standard of beauty, and after 2-3 years I still found myself bored/tired of her, so I had to trick myself out of it (which I did) anyway.
Lucky_One Posted February 20, 2009 Posted February 20, 2009 Apparently, your standards only apply to appearance? I have high standards on a whole lot of aspects of personality - looks isn't one of them. If you lower your standards, then you get what you are in the market for.
sumdude Posted February 20, 2009 Posted February 20, 2009 So many more things to being attractive than just looks. One thing I always look for is how she moves. Can she dance? Does she have any rhythm? No moves on the dance floor usually means no moves on any other floor. A car with a Ferrari body and a Yugo engine may looked great parked in the driveway but it's no fun to drive. or.. to paraphrase Forrest Gump "Sexy is as sexy does." ...which may even go back as far as Chaucer
Sith Apprentice Posted March 7, 2009 Posted March 7, 2009 The only time I lower my standards is when I want a hummer. Fat women give the best hummers because they like to eat.
Recommended Posts