Ariadne Posted July 9, 2010 Posted July 9, 2010 (edited) On the contrary, it seems the responses in this thread show that looks matter to a degree...women are willing to date guys that may not be super attractive as long as they aren't unattractive...at least I think... Btw, when I said unattractive I didn't mean physically. It could be anything, even an action that would mean we have nothing to do (unfortunately, being dumb is the first one). Physically, it has happened that some guys that I found the most attractive I actually found ugly at first. Then they became the most beautiful on earth. Edited July 9, 2010 by Ariadne
gamma1 Posted July 9, 2010 Posted July 9, 2010 I fall in the middle somewhere. I'll get women who show interest, but not a lot of interest. I think I'm the backup option, which explains why so frequntly there will be a couple of emails sent and she will not respon anymore. One women actually had the decency to tell me she found someone better.
dispatch3d Posted July 9, 2010 Posted July 9, 2010 On the contrary, it seems the responses in this thread show that looks matter to a degree...women are willing to date guys that may not be super attractive as long as they aren't unattractive...at least I think... They are saying they don't like unattractive guys. Even this doesn't seem to usually be physical-slanting. They aren't saying ugly guys are unattractive, it sounds like it's usually something else. They are also saying guys who were nothing great to look at (ie. average looking) have made them all hot and bothered once they were in a relationship/through time. This doesn't happen with guys. If a girl is a 6 (average looking), she's a 6. Maybe she dresses up one day and she's a 7, but then she goes back to being a 6 later on. Anyhow I'll stop derailing the thread with stuff guys seem to care a lot about on this forum... hopefully it doesn't trail off into another one of those dicussion threads... they were saying it's at least 1/month.
hopesndreams Posted July 9, 2010 Posted July 9, 2010 Is 'attractive' the same as 'not unattractive'? That is, do you find someone attractive just because they're not unattractive, or do they have to surpass a higher bar of attractiveness in your mind to actually be deemed attractive to you? Practically speaking, would you date someone who you find to only be 'not unattractive', or do they have to be more attractive than the "bare minimum"? Or are these two things the same to you? Or do you not care...? I like imperfections. Let's face it, there are those that are "ugly" and dismissible and those that are "ugly" but attractive. I would date those that are unattractive. It's not the physical aspect that can make or break a relationship. The physical draws you closer to someone in the beginning, but, once you get to really know someone, it's what is in their eyes and when they are looking deep within your soul, with those eyes, that matters most. Aren't I the romantic.
Gero Posted July 9, 2010 Posted July 9, 2010 Physically, it has happened that some guys that I found the most attractive I actually found ugly at first. Then they became the most beautiful on earth. I don't know if most guys are like this, but I agree with that statement. Some of the best girls I have met were ones that I didn't initially find physically attractive.
hopesndreams Posted July 9, 2010 Posted July 9, 2010 Oh, I absolutely agree...and oftentimes the nonphysical traits of a person will make him/her more physically attractive...I guess this is more a question of whether you'd settle for someone who was simply not unattractive to you, rather than pass and wait for someone who was truly attractive to you... OOOOOOOOOOOOOooooooooooooooh. I think I get it. Wait for someone that is truly attractive to you. Or, do you mean wait for someone you find truly attractive?
Ariadne Posted July 9, 2010 Posted July 9, 2010 I don't know if most guys are like this, but I agree with that statement. Some of the best girls I have met were ones that I didn't initially find physically attractive. Exactly. Then anything that made them who they were was special.
hopesndreams Posted July 9, 2010 Posted July 9, 2010 I quickly realized that this was not a very good question and the whole premise of my thread was kind of silly...it seemed to make a lot more sense in my mind... But I'm referring to just physical appearance... Just physically is boring.
hopesndreams Posted July 9, 2010 Posted July 9, 2010 Ok, maybe a better way to rephrase the question: If you met someone that wasn't physically unattractive to you but also wasn't "hot-n-bothered" attractive, would you give that person a chance to become more "total-package" attractive? Absolutely.
Author USMCHokie Posted July 10, 2010 Author Posted July 10, 2010 Strangely enough, my original intention was to get men's points of views...and I have gotten almost all female responses...because I find myself in this sort of situation...and am honestly wondering what guys think about this...
Green Posted July 10, 2010 Posted July 10, 2010 Strangely enough, my original intention was to get men's points of views...and I have gotten almost all female responses...because I find myself in this sort of situation...and am honestly wondering what guys think about this... Dude I've given plenty of advice on this situation. Guys some times get all caught up on "shes an 8/10.. or She is a 9/10 but 10's are rare... ect" I say you have one standard and you make it personal to you. IS SHE ATTRACTIVE? If the answer to that question is YES SHE IS ATTRACTIVE then go persue her see if she CONTINUES TO BE ATTRACTIVE after dating her. NO DON'T DATE GIRLS YOU DON'T FIND ATTRACTIVE. You find the right women its like ENERGY it makes you feel like a BETTER man. Almost as if you could do ANYTHING.
gypsy_nicky Posted July 10, 2010 Posted July 10, 2010 I think the OP is talking about being average looking?? 'Your not unattractive but not attractive either'.
Author USMCHokie Posted July 10, 2010 Author Posted July 10, 2010 I think the OP is talking about being average looking?? 'Your not unattractive but not attractive either'. That's another way of putting it, yes...
norajane Posted July 10, 2010 Posted July 10, 2010 Strangely enough, my original intention was to get men's points of views...and I have gotten almost all female responses...because I find myself in this sort of situation...and am honestly wondering what guys think about this... I think you're trying too hard. If you're curious about how others feel, that's one thing. But if you're interested in opinions because you're trying to talk yourself into something...it won't work. Falling in love is a special thing. It won't happen with everyone, or just because you think you should, or because you really want to be in love, or for any other reason except you're feeling it. Either you are drawn to a person or you aren't. If you find yourself trying to rationalize something, it's not right. Even if you know that you're being unreasonable in your expectations, and even if you feel like a jerk for wanting to pass up a girl because she's not an 8 or 9 or 10 in appearance, if you aren't feeling it, you aren't feeling it. If you were truly into her, her being a 6 or 7 or whatever wouldn't phase you in the least and you would be hot for her nonetheless. If you've given it enough time (and by enough, I mean you are still interested and/or excited to see her vs. kinda not caring or putting off calling her or seeing her), and you're not feeling it, then you're just not feeling it.
You'reasian Posted July 10, 2010 Posted July 10, 2010 (edited) On the contrary, it seems the responses in this thread show that looks matter to a degree...women are willing to date guys that may not be super attractive as long as they aren't unattractive...at least I think... Too much focus on attraction. Several posters have suggested that they have been with men whom they found so-so or somewhat attractive who grew in attractiveness because of their interactions and personality. Would you date a smokin' hot, attractive woman for long-term possilbility.... who was a complete b1tch, ultra-feminist man hater? If so, check your backbone and your priorities. If a woman is not unattractive AND doesn't have good relationship qualities, then I'd have to move on. If she's got some awesome relationship qualities, I'd definitely stay with her. Edited July 10, 2010 by You'reasian
AD1980 Posted July 11, 2010 Posted July 11, 2010 I must find something physically attratcive about a girl at first to be with her but i have a pretty varied taste in women and can find allot of women at least somewhat cute and toelrable to me At the same time im awful with women and lack self confidence..If it wasnt that way i wonder if id be so liberal about looks..
gypsy_nicky Posted July 11, 2010 Posted July 11, 2010 That's another way of putting it, yes... you gotta chill out bro. Is this some broad your dating?
Author USMCHokie Posted July 11, 2010 Author Posted July 11, 2010 you gotta chill out bro. Is this some broad your dating? Yea, it is...
hopesndreams Posted July 11, 2010 Posted July 11, 2010 you gotta chill out bro. Is this some broad your dating? Broad?
Yamaha Posted July 11, 2010 Posted July 11, 2010 Broad? "A broad is a woman who can throw a mean punch"
homersheineken Posted July 11, 2010 Posted July 11, 2010 The taste I have in women is out of this world. I seriously think my gf his hot on levels rarely seen in the human race. Pics or it didn't happen...
gypsy_nicky Posted July 12, 2010 Posted July 12, 2010 Yea, it is... aaahhh. IF, you feel strongly about her physical appearance being subpar but is average, imo, I'd let her go. I'm guessing with this but, I'm thinking she has a nice personality and jives well with you?
Recommended Posts