Trialbyfire Posted April 1, 2009 Posted April 1, 2009 Attraction is a package deal. Personality and looks are important. But the OP was specifically asking about physical attractiveness and I thought it was because for most men, the first thing we notice about a woman we don't know, are her looks. From a distance, there is no way to tell whether or not a woman has a great personality. In that case, the first attraction is physical and that is how we make the decision to approach her or not. Personality can enhance or diminish the physical attraction quite a bit though. But I don't think that there is a way around it. There has to be some physical attraction. Things are different, when we already know the woman and know at least some things about her personality. While I understand this, it's not as if a guy like fral runs around and previous to meet and greet, says, "hey, she's relationship material" or "she looks like a great lay". Your criteria is based on looking at each woman as relationship material. By the time you've hit a relationship with someone, you've already fallen for the package deal. It would be a cold man indeed, who would step back at this point and say, she's not attractive. This type of thing only happens at the end of a relationship where the guy or girl has already or is looking to uninvest for other reasons to begin with.
St. Nick Posted April 1, 2009 Posted April 1, 2009 Two questions for men: 1) What degree would you say you place on a woman’s physical attractiveness when looking for a long term relationship? Is it less, more, or no different than when you are dating? 2) Have any of you had any success by lowering your expectations for physical beauty? If so, how far did you lower them? 1) To a large degree I look at physical attraction. It depends on a variety of things. One of them is if she looks attractive with little or no makeup. Another is to assess how well she takes care of herself when she first met. A woman who has already let herself go when we meet is a no-no. Whether dating or long-term it's the same. 2) I've had lots of success lowering my expectations. I don't demand physical beauty to be on par with pin-ups. I've dated fat chicks, tall chicks, women with shaved heads, short women, women with cankles, an amputee, and medusas. Some guys I know trash my standards. But hey, I have a much easier time getting women than they do.
EmperorR Posted April 1, 2009 Posted April 1, 2009 My ex fiancé looked like a model cheated and dumped me after 3 years. My last ex was a little chubby, her nose was crooked and was just hmm maybe a 5/10, got dumped still. I was attracted to both, I really don't care about looks per say.
Sam Spade Posted April 1, 2009 Posted April 1, 2009 Two questions for men: 1) What degree would you say you place on a woman’s physical attractiveness when looking for a long term relationship? Is it less, more, or no different than when you are dating? 2) Have any of you had any success by lowering your expectations for physical beauty? If so, how far did you lower them? As far as physical attractiveness is concerned, all I care about is that I'm sufficiently attracted on ongoing basis. Other than that, for LTR i actually prefer a woman that's NOT too hot. Certainly pretty, but not a knockout. (Too much risk of entitlement complex and relentless attention from men etc. I've got other things to worry about . Besides, regardless of the level of hotness of your partner, you get used to it eventually and need to put some effort into it anyway). So, in that sense I've never lowered my expectations - I'd say that a many or most of all (non-fat) women aged 20-40 I encounter on a daily basis are attractive enough.
refurb Posted April 1, 2009 Posted April 1, 2009 It's tricky. She has to be pretty enough, or it's just not gonna happen. Past that level, looking better is a plus but not a big one. MAT = minimum attractiveness threshold That's pretty much how guys work. RF
loser101 Posted April 1, 2009 Posted April 1, 2009 MAT = minimum attractiveness threshold That's pretty much how guys work. RF that's my experience with men as well. they have a certain MAT they won't date below out of self-respect more than anything
Isolde Posted April 1, 2009 Posted April 1, 2009 By and large, I think if a man is well adjusted he'll find his level of compatibility attraction wise and seek out women in that range with a compatible personality. I don't think lowering expectations works, nor do I think it's healthy to work on scoring a member of the opposite sex based solely on how attractive they are on a wider basis. Thus for me the emphasis is high on both attributes, but not on a "wider" basis. I wouldn't always chase models for example. Couples appear to be happy with a similar level of attractiveness, it's partly about being able to relate to each other. This does not only operate for couples who would be perceived to be at a high level of attractiveness by society. Part of a humans great attributes is being able to adapt to their own set of circumstances. Then there are the men who only chase a certain level of attractiveness despite adding nothing into that mix... these are the men trying to fill a void. Yes! You are spot on. If you must have a league, it should be people that you're compatible and comfortable with. The best thing is to not have a league at all and give lots of people a chance, until you find out what's best for you.
clv0116 Posted April 1, 2009 Posted April 1, 2009 MAT = minimum attractiveness threshold That's pretty much how guys work. MAT. I like it. Yup, that's pretty much the thing for most guys.
Sam Spade Posted April 1, 2009 Posted April 1, 2009 MAT = minimum attractiveness threshold That's pretty much how guys work. RF Totally . The same approach extends to all other personality and character traits .
nana yaw II Posted April 2, 2009 Posted April 2, 2009 Two questions for men: 1) What degree would you say you place on a woman’s physical attractiveness when looking for a long term relationship? Is it less, more, or no different than when you are dating? 2) Have any of you had any success by lowering your expectations for physical beauty? If so, how far did you lower them? 1 - quite important to me, but not the totality. i need to have somebody to me who i find pretty; nice hair, nice breasts, nice body and nice eyes. 2 - not really. i know my type and have had plenty of success in dating people of that type.
yongyong Posted April 2, 2009 Posted April 2, 2009 Please don't mention about 'inner beauty' 'personality is the most important' Bull ****. it's like you have criminal record and expect to pass job interview.
boxing123 Posted April 2, 2009 Posted April 2, 2009 Most guys lowered their standards at some point for sex, but for dating I have not. I don't really have a list or "standard". I like what she looks like, or not.
Recommended Posts