Why are good looks coveted / valued?

[D87]

Didn't read the whole thread but the answer should be obvious. Good genes are desirable, bad genes are not. Every organism exists to have strong healthy offsprings. Looks and smell are the only way an organism can judge the genes of a mate and decide whether that mate is worth reproducing with (of course this process of genetic evaluation is largely subconscious). It is a scientific fact that beautiful people are healthier, more intelligent, and live longer (see article below), thus have superior genes and are much more desirable for mating. Not sure why there needs to be a thread on this, its common sense.

 

 

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/science-news/3341719/Why-beauty-is-an-advert-for-good-genes.html

[OnyxSnowfall]

Didn't read the whole thread but the answer should be obvious. Good genes are desirable, bad genes are not. Every organism exists to have strong healthy offsprings. Looks and smell are the only way an organism can judge the genes of a mate and decide whether that mate is worth reproducing with (of course this process of genetic evaluation is largely subconscious). It is a scientific fact that beautiful people are healthier, more intelligent, and live longer (see article below), thus have superior genes and are much more desirable for mating. Not sure why there needs to be a thread on this, its common sense.

 

 

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/science-news/3341719/Why-beauty-is-an-advert-for-good-genes.html

 

That is a theory (note that it states... IDEA... and uses words such as "SUGGESTS" rather than FACT...)

 

that's disproved by the *fact* that attractions change through-out life and people can be attracted to things that are "UNHEALTHY" --- like INCEST. And people can "deceive" through their looks, CONSTANTLY. And yet, genes can't detect it ---- how about men that are attracted to transgender women unwittingly --- or what about homosexuality, and pedophilia?

 

It's not (at least always and or majority of the time) ABOUT REPRODUCTION and some "biological" prodigy built within the human to ensure genetic superiority.

 

Some people want to "mate" with animals for Christ's sake. WTF?

 

And there are plenty of "asymmetrical" looking people who are intelligent and are not ill and feeble

And plenty of "symmetrical" people who can't count up to twenty, etc etc etc.

Edited November 3, 2011 by OnyxSnowfall

[D87]

That is a theory (note that it states... IDEA... not FACT...)

 

that's easily disproved by the *fact* that attractions change through-out life and people can be attracted to things that are "UNHEALTHY" --- like INCEST. And people can "deceive" through their looks, CONSTANTLY. And yet, genes can't detect it ---- men that are attracted to transgenders unwittingly --- etc etc etc.

 

It's not (at least always and or majority of the time) ABOUT REPRODUCTION. Some people want to "mate" with animals for Christ's sake. WTF?

 

And there are plenty of "asymmetrical" looking people who are intelligent and are not ill and feeble

And plenty of "symmetrical" people who can't count up to twenty, etc etc etc.

 

 

There are exceptions to everything, like you said, there are people who will have sex with animals, with trees, and with corpses. Plenty of psychos out there, doesn't mean that the theory is false. And there certainly are unattractive people who are very intelligent, and vice verse. But these are exceptions, not the rule. There have been numerous scientific studies done which indicate that attractive people are healthier, more intelligent, and live longer, thus more desirable as a potential mate. Why would any organism want to have offspring that are less healthy? This would directly go against the theory of evolution and natural selection.

[OnyxSnowfall]

There are exceptions to everything, like you said, there are people who will have sex with animals, with trees, and with corpses. Plenty of psychos out there, doesn't mean that the theory is false. There have been numerous scientific studies done which indicate that attractive people are healthier, more intelligent, and live longer, thus more desirable. Why would any organism want to have offspring that are less healthy? This would directly go against the theory of evolution and natural selection.

 

They do not *indicate* that, they "suggest" it...

 

But in humoring this -----

 

In other words, "ugly" people should be protected from being discriminated against, much like minorities and pregnant women etc --- because apparently just being "beautiful" makes it easier to get a job, find a mate, get good deals, etc

 

Hm, still, "beauty" is subjective.

 

People "mate down" ALL the time though...............

 

And for a variety of reasons. Some people don't care about spawning offspring, and find more value in something beyond physical appearance etc.

[ptp]

Didn't read the whole thread but the answer should be obvious. Good genes are desirable, bad genes are not. Every organism exists to have strong healthy offsprings. Looks and smell are the only way an organism can judge the genes of a mate and decide whether that mate is worth reproducing with (of course this process of genetic evaluation is largely subconscious). It is a scientific fact that beautiful people are healthier, more intelligent, and live longer (see article below), thus have superior genes and are much more desirable for mating. Not sure why there needs to be a thread on this, its common sense.

 

 

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/science-news/3341719/Why-beauty-is-an-advert-for-good-genes.html

 

Yea I am not buying that all.

 

A sibling is the closet genetic match for a person and siblings' attractiveness varies greatly. Thus, even thought 2 siblings have essentially the closest amount of genetic material, somehow the uglier one will be more susceptible to diseases like heart disease and cancer?

 

Sorry not buying that premise.

 

There are some factors like height, a bigger build etc.. that would have made sense in primitive times, but not so much now.

[dasein]

This reminds me of two incidents that stick in my mind, both were actresses who appeared on the Tonight Show. Raquel Welch told Johnny Carson that she spent most Saturday nights home alone making scrambled eggs. Lara Flynn Boyle, at the height of her beauty and success, told Jay Leno she almost never got asked out and then described one date a friend fixed her up on. The guy took her to In n Out Burger, barely spoke to her and then dropped her off at home. The life of a movie star!

 

C'mon, surely you don't believe that stuff, or anything else a celebrity would say to hint to the masses that they were "available" and thus sell more tickets and merch.

[MaxNoob]

attractive people are healthier, more intelligent, and live longer

 

If unattractive people had a tendency to die by the age of 20, this theory would make sense. But they don't; the reason we still have all these age related diseases like cancer and heart disease is that people tend to get them long after they have kids, so we can never develop a genetic predisposition to favor partners who will live longer.

[eatNrM]

MrNate reporting in (dealing with spamming issues yet again..)

 

As far as this op goes..have you asked yourself these questions? Or thought about what attracts you to the man you're dating?

 

The answer can simply be found in the reason you picked your boyfriend. Why? Because part of the reason you date him is because you find him physically attractive. And this I can say with 100% accuracy. Speaking of.. you are taken after all. Why is striking a nerve with you exactly?

 

But it's been some time since this thread was started so you have probably sobered up by this point.

 

I agree with those who have chalked it up to wiring. We will all find different things attractive, based on different desires that have evolved over thousands of years.

Edited November 3, 2011 by eatNrM

[OnyxSnowfall]

MrNate reporting in (dealing with spamming issues yet again..)

 

As far as this op goes..have you asked yourself these questions? Or thought about what attracts you to the man you're dating?

 

The answer can simply be found in the reason you picked your boyfriend. Why? Because part of the reason you date him is because you find him physically attractive. And this I can say with 100% accuracy. Speaking of.. you are taken after all. Why is striking a nerve with you exactly?

 

But it's been some time since this thread was started so you have probably sobered up by this point.

 

I agree with those who have chalked it up to wiring. We will all find different things attractive, based on different desires that have evolved over thousands of years.

 

I have sobered up ... alas.

 

When I met my boyfriend, it was at a little geeky anime party that my cousin invited me to. He had his hair slicked back in a way that I recall as being dorky and unappealing, and in all perfect honesty, he was one of the least symmetrical men there --- one of the most symmetrical men there was making "jokes" about how people in slavery deserved to suffer, and I was unable to see the humor in them. Another one was trying to flirt with me but he kept talking about his "psychotic ex" in between his compliments and passes. And another one was just not my type at all. The rest were with their girlfriends/wives.

 

Some of us sat down to play apples to apples and it was apparent that the man who's now my lover was the most intelligent/creative and intriguing. That I've ever personally encountered, heh. And I had been "asexual" for a couple of years at that point, but I left that party having thoughts of "oh my", although I didn't start sexually fantasizing about him until he shared some of his philosophies on life with me.

 

After about a week from the party, I decided to find a way to contact him and ask him to see me. He didn't show a blatant interest in me at the party, though he did seem nervous when we played Wario's Smooth moves together So what-evs, I'm probably just a freak. But he did seem otherwise reserved and eccentric, so I didn't have faith he'd try to contact me.

 

Anyway, I stand by that it was his mind that hooked me. He flaunted his eloquent vocabulary and a few of his insights........ and as I was being creepy and watching him when he left into a different room, he started cleaning up and vacuuming (it was his friend's house). I got a girl boner , and not 'cause he was "symmetrical".

 

Also, he was a weirdo. He had one glove on, to hold his wii controller with. Wtf. Lol, I wanted to find out about it

 

I dunno. Swap his physical features with other ones and I believe I would have been into him given all things considered. I have since become very endeared with his features but...................

 

The "physical attraction" I felt towards him was really not for his vessel. The most I can concede to it is that a part of his attire (the glove) made me curious.

 

(Sorry about the spam issues )

Edited November 3, 2011 by OnyxSnowfall

[Leegh]

MrNate reporting in (dealing with spamming issues yet again..)

 

As far as this op goes..have you asked yourself these questions? Or thought about what attracts you to the man you're dating?

 

The answer can simply be found in the reason you picked your boyfriend. Why? Because part of the reason you date him is because you find him physically attractive. And this I can say with 100% accuracy. Speaking of.. you are taken after all. Why is striking a nerve with you exactly?

 

But it's been some time since this thread was started so you have probably sobered up by this point.

 

I agree with those who have chalked it up to wiring. We will all find different things attractive, based on different desires that have evolved over thousands of years.

I believe we are attracted to many different types of people but only fall in love with those who remind us of the people that have the personality traits of our parents (or primary caregivers). For example, if a woman had an alcoholic father, she may marry an alcoholic man; but this is all unconscious.

[Thieves]

I believe we are attracted to many different types of people but only fall in love with those who remind us of the people that have the personality traits of our parents (or primary caregivers). For example, if a woman had an alcoholic father, she may marry an alcoholic man; but this is all unconscious.

 

You know, in my own opinion, this type of belief about the unconscious and how we choose our romantic partners is too loosely thrown around -- or in other words, a little overestimated. Yes, it seems to make sense in a typically "psychological" way, and seems to be the easiest conclusion some people draw when trying to find reasons why a person might be attracted to certain people. But I've experienced too many of those who have emerged from clearly broken families to go on to have healthy relationships with "healthy" partners (or as healthy as those who didn't come from broken families) to believe that this impacts them that heavily.

 

I've also experienced or witnessed many who do not come from "standard" broken families and who have healthy relationships with their family, fall in love with possibly the worst partners for them -- which yes, includes alcoholics, sex addicts, and verbally/physically abusive people. I.e.: good girl from good home, marries bad boy from bad home. Or vice versa.

Edited November 3, 2011 by Thieves

[Leegh]

Thieves, you make some good points. In addition, I've read that unconsiously people look for partners that have both the negative and positive qualities of a parent, (but the negative is stronger). For example, if a man had a very bossy mother, he may be highly attracted to a very bossy woman. A theory is that this person was very bothered by this as a child, (the negative quality) and is trying to unconsiously resolve it through a love interest. Also, I've read that our "love map" is formed by the age of eight. So much of it does seem to be a mystery, why there can be two people of equal looks, etc. and we can be highly attracted to one person and not at all attracted to the other person. The above "theories" are from various books I've read over the years, but as you stated there are so many variables.

Edited November 3, 2011 by Leegh

[AHardDaysNight]

I had a friend who was a fashion model, who just had a seizure a couple of months ago and died.

 

She was 20.

 

Attractive people don't necessarily live longer.

[MaxNoob]

I had a friend who was a fashion model, who just had a seizure a couple of months ago and died.

 

She was 20.

Attractive people don't necessarily live longer.

 

This could be the very reason why we are all mortal. If we could develop an particular attraction to people who age slower, such as someone who's family has a tendency to live to the age of 90 instead of 70, then we could develop a resistance to aging after several generations, assuming that aging is just a genetic defect. But this kind of attraction is impossible to develop, since the tendency to age slower and resist age related diseases is not apparent at child bearing age.

 

I have to wonder about hydra though - a plant like animal that does not age, unlike all other life on Earth.

[Anela]

You just have a stigma about beauty like older virgins have a stigma with their virginity. Until a guy dates you/uses you just for your looks you will always have this attitude that every guy thinks you are atrocious.

 

I have received a lot of attention for my body, and I guess my looks at times, although I don't think I'm that pretty, and I always wanted what she wants: someone who would feel that way about me, both inside and out. I was isolated for a long time, and still am, so I guess I could have missed out on someone during those years, but I've never had anyone treat me that way. Either I get the "hey sexy" stuff, or when they know me, they're more respectful. It hadn't occurred to me that they might be nervous about asking me out, but I've never had any man (outside of my father) tell me that I'm beautiful, so I wouldn't guess that.

 

I wouldn't want to be dated just for my looks, but I do know what she means.

[Anela]

I had a friend who was a fashion model, who just had a seizure a couple of months ago and died.

 

She was 20.

 

Attractive people don't necessarily live longer.

 

Or have the best genes, health-wise.

 

I'm so sorry to hear about your friend. :( I know of someone else, who said her gorgeous, popular, confident 21 year-old friend died suddenly one day.

[Anela]

To a degree it does.

 

But in the end it doesn't. I want my piece of the pie too, and I don't want the damage piece of pie these types of guys defecate when the woman finally is over the hill/grows up and begins to look for men who actually have something to offer them (and no, I'm not talking about money).

 

I'm not a nerd and I'm willing to take some womanizers sloppy seconds. Women should be held accountable for the choices they make in romance, instead of being able to start from a blank slate when they turn 30 and want to have a family/have financial stability .

 

Again, women won't appreciate being referred to as "sloppy seconds", and if women should be held accountable, then so should men. I don't like players, or the double standard when it comes to the number of people each sex has slept with.

[Anela]

Most men hit on anything and everything.

 

I get way more self conscious hitting on a plain -jane than on some super hot woman. When even the plain jane's reject you , that's way more devestating than some princess that you have nothing to lose with.

 

I think I'm going to start doing what women do with men and only hit on 10 out of 10 looking women. Not because they are particularly interesting or even me wanting anything more than sex with most of them, but instead because the self-esteem blow is non-existent compared to some of the attitudes of plain janes who think they're 10's because they saw a Dove soap commercials telling them to act that way.

 

Wow, you really have an attitude problem - not just you, but the men who sound just like you.

 

And this answered my own question, so thanks.

[laotzu]

I don't trust people who can't spell correctly, as far as some of these replies go.

 

Why is attractiveness selected for? Because it's an evolutionary indicator, really - doesn't have to be anything more, and doesn't have to be true in every and all cases. We do it all the time with animals, right? If I showed you an overweight dog and a fit dog, you'd look at the fit dog and think it was probably healthier. You're making a value judgement - and that judgement could be wrong - but most times, it's probably correct. From a marginal benefit perspective, we probably sometimes select for a level of attractiveness where there's very little value added, but a lot of that is just aping the cultural values that are pressed on to us through society.

 

Selecting for attractiveness up to a certain point = selecting for health

Selecting for attractiveness at the margins = as USMC said, basically posturing for social standing. I.E. "I'm able to obtain this, so that indicates _______ about me."

 

You can't blame anyone for the latter point, because they've been conditioned that way. For me, I'm looking for a not super hot girl who's very intelligent and has a good job and good character, because I think I'll get extra value that way. I'm not kidding. I don't want "the hottest" girl, I basically want an intelligent girl who's into kinky sex. Yes, I've had three drinks tonight...

[jobaba]

I'm a very lucky person in the sense that I find a lot of women attractive, including all races. Women other men have found unattractive I think are 'hot' and women other men think are 'nasty' I think are pretty cute.

 

Interestingly enough, I think unsuccessful men really broaden their net of what they find physically attractive, like maybe up to 70% of women of appropriate age.

 

But unsuccessful women really don't. I've met women who are out of shape and not traditionally attractive, and they'll still pine for the ~20% top hot guys. Sure, they'll settle for someone less good looking, but only that top portion will they find immediately attractive.

 

Upon first seeing a woman, men's reactions...

 

"She's hot!"

"She's pretty hot."

"She's cute."

"She's pretty cute."

"Yea, she's pretty decent."

"Yea, not bad."

"She's OK"

 

ALL of which pretty much mean you are attractive enough.

 

For women, it's more like,

 

"Oooooh! He's hot. I'd date him"

 

or

 

"I wasn't initially attracted to him, but I gave him a chance."

[Els]

I have sobered up ... alas.

 

When I met my boyfriend, it was at a little geeky anime party that my cousin invited me to. He had his hair slicked back in a way that I recall as being dorky and unappealing, and in all perfect honesty, he was one of the least symmetrical men there --- one of the most symmetrical men there was making "jokes" about how people in slavery deserved to suffer, and I was unable to see the humor in them. Another one was trying to flirt with me but he kept talking about his "psychotic ex" in between his compliments and passes. And another one was just not my type at all. The rest were with their girlfriends/wives.

 

Some of us sat down to play apples to apples and it was apparent that the man who's now my lover was the most intelligent/creative and intriguing. That I've ever personally encountered, heh. And I had been "asexual" for a couple of years at that point, but I left that party having thoughts of "oh my", although I didn't start sexually fantasizing about him until he shared some of his philosophies on life with me.

 

After about a week from the party, I decided to find a way to contact him and ask him to see me. He didn't show a blatant interest in me at the party, though he did seem nervous when we played Wario's Smooth moves together So what-evs, I'm probably just a freak. But he did seem otherwise reserved and eccentric, so I didn't have faith he'd try to contact me.

 

Anyway, I stand by that it was his mind that hooked me. He flaunted his eloquent vocabulary and a few of his insights........ and as I was being creepy and watching him when he left into a different room, he started cleaning up and vacuuming (it was his friend's house). I got a girl boner , and not 'cause he was "symmetrical".

 

Also, he was a weirdo. He had one glove on, to hold his wii controller with. Wtf. Lol, I wanted to find out about it

 

I dunno. Swap his physical features with other ones and I believe I would have been into him given all things considered. I have since become very endeared with his features but...................

 

The "physical attraction" I felt towards him was really not for his vessel. The most I can concede to it is that a part of his attire (the glove) made me curious.

 

(Sorry about the spam issues )

 

I can totally relate, girl. An ex of mine was a guy who was, by all traditional standards, really not physically attractive. He was tall, but so very lanky (130 lbs at like 5'10"), he had a decidedly 'unhandsome' face and wore the rattiest clothes I've ever seen (I'm a girl with a HUGE tolerance for clothes, so when I say ratty, I mean holey t-shirt ratty). But oh, dear Lord, his mind.

 

His IQ was literally off the charts - and I mean 160 and above, it was so far off the realm of normalcy that tests could not measure it with reasonable accuracy. Any intellectual feat he chose to attempt, he sailed through with undaunted ease, flawlessly and simply. I recall sitting next to him solving brainteasers, and he pretty much went through them like they were common arithmetic problems. He such had a razor-sharp wit, I've nearly orgasmed listening to some of the things he said, or reading some of the stuff he wrote.

 

And the best part about all of it was that he was so unassuming! Not in a low self-esteem 'I can't do anything right' way, but in a 'I know I do just fine and I don't need to show it off' way. We ultimately didn't work out in the end due to some personality clashes, and the fact that he isn't the sort of person who invests much into relationships. But while I was with him, I was most definitely attracted to him, unhandsome self and all.

 

I guess I am lucky in that with my current bf, I have both physical and mental attraction for him. That is incredibly rare to achieve, and I'm amazed that I've found someone who ticks both boxes. But really, I would still have chosen my ex over a Brad Pitt or Tom Cruise. No question.

[Feelsgoodman]

(I may regret starting this thread when I am sober........... but for now >D)

 

What the heck is the big deal about having a "physically attractive" partner? Or even BEING "physically attractive"? What BENEFITS does that really provide? What is "practical" about it? Or as far as the opposite is concerned, are people who highly value "good-looks" shallow?

 

WHY do "good-looks" have an "advantage" over "average/atrocious"? looks, despite their being pros and cons to everything?

 

What is the point of "external beauty of the human"?

 

Why does physical beauty have so much "power"? Is it really some unexplained primitive impulse to "desire" it? And do females *genuinely* covet it as much as males *seem* to?

 

Don't give me "biological" wiring bull **** please... unless you can explain the attraction to the innumerable contrived "appearances" that are abundant..............

What benefit is there to living in a nice, clean luxury home with a private beach as opposed to some rundown shack in the ghetto? What benefit is there to driving a Ferrari as opposed to driving an old rusty jalopy? What benefit is there to vacationing on the French Riviera as opposed to, say, Somalia?

 

These are all questions that have no logical answers. Humans are strange that way...they choose one thing over another for completely arbitrary reasons

[jobaba]

I can totally relate, girl. An ex of mine was a guy who was, by all traditional standards, really not physically attractive. He was tall, but so very lanky (130 lbs at like 5'10"), he had a decidedly 'unhandsome' face and wore the rattiest clothes I've ever seen (I'm a girl with a HUGE tolerance for clothes, so when I say ratty, I mean holey t-shirt ratty). But oh, dear Lord, his mind.

 

His IQ was literally off the charts - and I mean 160 and above, it was so far off the realm of normalcy that tests could not measure it with reasonable accuracy. Any intellectual feat he chose to attempt, he sailed through with undaunted ease, flawlessly and simply. I recall sitting next to him solving brainteasers, and he pretty much went through them like they were common arithmetic problems. He such had a razor-sharp wit, I've nearly orgasmed listening to some of the things he said, or reading some of the stuff he wrote.

 

And the best part about all of it was that he was so unassuming! Not in a low self-esteem 'I can't do anything right' way, but in a 'I know I do just fine and I don't need to show it off' way. We ultimately didn't work out in the end due to some personality clashes, and the fact that he isn't the sort of person who invests much into relationships. But while I was with him, I was most definitely attracted to him, unhandsome self and all.

 

I guess I am lucky in that with my current bf, I have both physical and mental attraction for him. That is incredibly rare to achieve, and I'm amazed that I've found someone who ticks both boxes. But really, I would still have chosen my ex over a Brad Pitt or Tom Cruise. No question.

 

As a man, I think it's kind of depressing when I hear you describe men like that. It sounds like you either have to be really good looking or 'UGLY' and a genius to get a woman. In other words, have a sum of attributes of looks and intelligence, and wealth that add up to a certain magnitude to be weighed versus other men,

 

And that you get to pick and choose from that barrel...

 

Why not just think of them as people who are all kind of attractive in different ways?

 

Honestly, I'm thinking of all of the young women I work with and I wouldn't call any of them unattractive or 'not pretty'. One of them is pretty hefty, but she's still kinda cute in her way. She has a nice smile.

 

I would guess you're a pretty good looking woman.

Edited December 3, 2011 by jobaba

[Els]

Err, you don't need to think them 'ugly' yourself to recognize that someone is not stereotypically attractive. You know the sort of mainstream criteria required to be considered such, so if the person does not fit them, I don't think it's wrong to say that he isn't stereotypically attractive in a physical way. It's like calling an obese person obese. It's what it is. Doesn't mean YOU can't be attracted to them. Evidently I was. That guy did appear 'cute' to me after I fell in love with him, but I'm pragmatic enough to know that by common standards, he was 'unhandsome'.

 

I'm sorry that you feel my description was demeaning towards men, although frankly if that is demeaning, I think half the people on this board have been worse towards women. I don't think of men as a 'barrel of fish' that I pick and choose from as I like. I prize emotional and mental connection too much for that. Wasn't that evident from my post?

 

Yes, you do have to be a 'genius' (again, in the conventional sense) to get me. I won't lie about that. I give as good as I expect in that aspect, however - and in all other aspects I require, really. Most women do not care for hyperintelligent men. Many can't see past their usually inevitable geekiness and quirkiness to love the man beneath. I can.

 

I would pragmatically rate myself as average-looking.

Edited December 3, 2011 by Elswyth

[jobaba]

Err, you don't need to think them 'ugly' yourself to recognize that someone is not stereotypically attractive. You know the sort of mainstream criteria required to be considered such, so if the person does not fit them, I don't think it's wrong to say that he isn't stereotypically attractive in a physical way. It's like calling an obese person obese. It's what it is. Doesn't mean YOU can't be attracted to them. Evidently I was. That guy did appear 'cute' to me after I fell in love with him, but I'm pragmatic enough to know that by common standards, he was 'unhandsome'.

 

I'm sorry that you feel my description was demeaning towards men, although frankly if that is demeaning, I think half the people on this board have been worse towards women. I don't think of men as a 'barrel of fish' that I pick and choose from as I like. I prize emotional and mental connection too much for that. Wasn't that evident from my post?

 

Yes, you do have to be a 'genius' (again, in the conventional sense) to get me. I won't lie about that. I give as good as I expect in that aspect, however - and in all other aspects I require, really. Most women do not care for hyperintelligent men. Many can't see past their usually inevitable geekiness and quirkiness to love the man beneath. I can.

 

I would pragmatically rate myself as average-looking.

 

Man. You are vain...