Question to the "I love him for his personality" crowd

[shadowplay]

Looks are the best indicator of genetic health and quality, so that's what we go by.

 

[GooseChaser]

This is why I respect Megandoll. Instead of trying to act like she is morally superior she comes right and says it. Of course many women care about looks and personality matters very little. I see the biggest scumbags in the world have women crawling all over them because they are hot.

That is their problem. Think of it this way; it leaves the good ones free for the rest of us.

[GooseChaser]

The days of couples doing that are long gone.

That's very pessimistic, and I don't think that's true. There are plenty of happy relationships out there.

[Mme. Chaucer]

Bad trend on LS:

 

Someone posts asking for the position of a particular group (women, in this case). Members of the group respond with their own personal experiences or opinions on the topic.

 

Immediately, posters who are NOT members of the queried group (men, in this case) jump to refute the posts by those who are answering from their own life experiences.

 

Whatever! I'll contribute.

 

I'm a woman. Chemistry is what makes a man attractive to me. I've been around extremely good looking men who did not move me at all, and some weird looking ones who got me all riled up. I can't define what makes that so. I would NOT define it as "loving him for his personality."

 

I do know some women who are really attracted by an adonis - like body and male model face. I know this kind of superficiality exists in women.

 

I am old myself, and I've been this way all my life. The man in my life now is not tall or exactly handsome. No, he would probably NOT like to hear me say that (well, he knows he's short). Truth is, though, I am intensely attracted to him. I LOVE to look at him, the sound of his voice makes me happy, his completely off the wall use of language has me enchanted, the way I trust his ethics warms me. When I look at his hands I want to grab them. I could go on and on.

 

Now, carry on with telling me why what I posted is not true, fellows.

[flying]

Now, carry on with telling me why what I posted is not true, fellows.

 

The trouble is quite simply that you didn't confirm anyone's worst fears, thereby validating the anger. Therefore, you must be lying. QED.

[SteveC80]

All these women saying they lvoe theeir man for who they are evne htough hes not what youd call handsome id like to see pictures of these guys

 

Usually if a womens not dating a 9 or 10 she thinks the guys not that attractive societally speaking

 

Women have a very small group of guys that they think are physcially attractive comapred to what Men find in women attratcive..

[flying]

All these women saying they lvoe theeir man for who they are evne htough hes not what youd call handsome id like to see pictures of these guys

 

Usually if a womens not dating a 9 or 10 she thinks the guys not that attractive societally speaking

 

Women have a very small group of guys that they think are physcially attractive comapred to what Men find in women attratcive..

 

....aaaand there you go.

 

The reason why not that many women responded seriously to this thread, Steve, is that it did not come across as looking for honest answers. It appeared to be a thread that was intended only to validate pre-existing anger, and responses that did not serve that purpose were discarded.

 

As you just did. So.

 

Oh - and I feel compelled to add that in your OP, and in several other posts in this thread as I recall, the argument was made that "we just want women to admit they're as shallow as men, that's all."

 

And yet, as you have just made clear, that was not the purpose at all, was it? You think women are more shallow than men. So yes, the OP was disingenuous in the extreme.

Edited September 15, 2010 by flying

[LisaLee]

I think beauty is so subjective. I know what I consider attractive is not the norm. In my own case since I was introduced to my SO online it was a couple of weeks before I actually saw what he looked like.

 

I can't deny that the way he physically looks doesn't have to do with me wanting to be with him. I am very physically and sexually attracted to him! When I saw him he went from being a pretty cool person to being a potential interest. If he was not to my physical liking he would have just stayed a good friend.

 

But I can say the opposite... if he was physically to my liking but his personality was off, then he wouldn't even be a good friend much less someone I sleep with. I'm quite picky!

 

So yes, it is his personality I adore, but it is also his looks, his body, his mannerisms, his demeanor... the combination of all that leads us to having a great connection. It really is the whole package, and not one is any better than the other.

[donnamaybe]

....aaaand there you go.

 

The reason why not that many women responded seriously to this thread, Steve, is that it did not come across as looking for honest answers. It appeared to be a thread that was intended only to validate pre-existing anger, and responses that did not serve that purpose were discarded.

 

As you just did. So.

 

Oh - and I feel compelled to add that in your OP, and in several other posts in this thread as I recall, the argument was made that "we just want women to admit they're as shallow as men, that's all."

And I responded to one of those "male" posters, and "he" predictably followed his usual pattern of deingrating women in general.

 

And yet, as you have just made clear, that was not the purpose at all, was it? You think women are more shallow than men. So yes, the OP was disingenuous in the extreme.

That's exactly what the purpose of this thread was. It was transparent as glass.

[a_woman]

It's impossible to separate attraction and personality. The brain is the largest sexual organ and sex starts outside the bedroom as we all know. I know people feel insulted by the 'I'm attracted to your personality' comment but personally I take that as a compliment thank you very much.

 

There is a difference between talking to some annoying bore who is perhaps good looking by convention but will never be attractive to me and my SO who isn't some male model but whose naughtiness is a massive turn on. When I see him I can't wait for privacy so I can rip his clothes off and that's because of his cheeky smile.

[MeganDoll]

I dont know anyone who doesnt consider looks at all

 

I dont care if a guys Gandhi and MLK rolled into one if i cant envison myself making out with him its going nowhere

 

Relationships need that animallistic part where you want to tear your partners clothes off everytime you look at him

 

Relatiosnhips where its mostly about personality and physically its kinda ehh are not gonna last

Edited September 15, 2010 by MeganDoll

[donnamaybe]

I have to have a guy with, for example, a reasonable level of intelligence and able to have an articulate conversation or, good looking or not, the mere thought of comingling bodily fluids with him is gonna make me want to .

[flying]

I dont know anyone who doesnt consider looks at all

 

I dont care if a guys Gandhi and MLK rolled into one if i cant envison myself making out with him its going nowhere

 

Relationships need that animallistic part where you want to tear your partners clothes off everytime you look at him

 

Relatiosnhips where its mostly about personality and physically its kinda ehh are not gonna last

 

Ah, but you see, no one is saying they don't consider looks. So this point is really moot. I asked the OP early on in this thread to provide examples of the sort of stuff he was talking about, and he never did. That's because the whole thing is really just a veiled rant - he ultimately just wanted to say hey, I think women are more shallow than men, admit it ladies. They didn't, and here we are, several pages later.

 

It's just silliness. We all know looks matter, personalities matter, how much each one weighs in varies from person to person, and from relationship to relationship. Anything else is just useless generalization. People are just hoping to arm themselves against future hurt by creating walls of generalization against the other gender or whatever. Well, you can't and it won't work anyway.

[meerkat stew]

Bad trend on LS:

 

Someone posts asking for the position of a particular group (women, in this case). Members of the group respond with their own personal experiences or opinions on the topic.

 

Huh? A post addressed at women is practically swarmed by men, and vice versa for the ones addressed at men, just the nature of the beast, not some kind of "bad trend."

[meerkat stew]

And I responded to one of those "male" posters, and "he" predictably followed his usual pattern of deingrating women in general.

 

If you seek to address comments at me, why not do so directly? It's actually apropos of the thread topic that you don't, and nice quotations around "male" and "he."

 

Typical donnamaybe MO will now be to retort, "why do you assume I'm talking to you?" and then toss some insult, does my calling you on it in advance take some of the fun out of -your- pattern here? Sowwy.

 

As far as denigrating women generally, where in this thread do I do so? The only "denigrating" I've done is of women who lie that looks aren't very important and then their actions prove that they are, in fact, the most important thing. I've never called anyone superficial in this thread.

[Mme. Chaucer]

Bad trend on LS:

 

Someone posts asking for the position of a particular group (women, in this case). Members of the group respond with their own personal experiences or opinions on the topic.

 

Immediately, posters who are NOT members of the queried group (men, in this case) jump to refute the posts by those who are answering from their own life experiences.

 

Meerkat Stew, somehow you accidentally forgot to include the portion of my post that was pertinent to the point I was making, so I have reposted that for you.

 

To reiterate for your benefit, what I perceive as a bad trend is:

 

Original post asking for input from a group based upon their experiences as members of that group.

 

Receiving input from that group, referencing their own personal experiences as members of the queried group.

 

Immediately refuting the input and the experiences shared by (numerous) responders.

 

I think it's a bad trend. It does nothing to promote learning, understanding or viable discourse. Evidently many don't agree with my position on this.

 

I hope that helped you.

[meerkat stew]

what I perceive as a bad trend

 

OH, see what I perceive as a bad trend is a male poster makes a thread and the first three females to reply include shaming elements in their responses.

 

I hope that helped you.

[flying]

OH, see what I perceive as a bad trend is a male poster makes a thread and the first three females to reply include shaming elements in their responses.

 

I hope that helped you.

 

Mine didn't include any of this shaming language of which you speak. Apology accepted.

[Sphere]

Megandoll is probably the most truthful woman in this thread.

 

I don't care why a woman is with me as long as he gives good head and makes a fine sandwich she is a keeper in my book.

[flying]

as long as he gives good head and makes a fine sandwich she is a keeper in my book.

 

Who's he then?

[Woggle]

That's very pessimistic, and I don't think that's true. There are plenty of happy relationships out there.

 

There are very few and if gender relations keep going the way they are then men and women won't even like each other as people in about a decade.

[Sphere]

Who's he then?

 

Typo 101, oh I feel so silly!

 

She is what I meant.

 

I don't know who she is, I haven't found her yet, I shall let you know in due course.

[donnamaybe]

Megandoll is probably the most truthful woman in this thread.

And I wonder how long her R's last...

[meerkat stew]

I see you doing a lot of calling women out for being shallow on this site...ok cool, that's your thing.

 

The definition of shaming. Then, ironically, without citing -any- of the supposed places where he calls women out for being shallow, you ask him to link the specific posts he is talking about, when we have all seen such posts here over and over.

[flying]

The definition of shaming. Then, ironically, without citing -any- of the supposed places where he calls women out for being shallow, you ask him to link the specific posts he is talking about, when we have all seen such posts here over and over.

 

No it isn't. I read that site very carefully. This is a code clear.

 

And the point is I asked him to cite these supposed places. Meerkat, weren't you paying attention? I'm shocked at you. You would never accuse others of something you yourself do.