Are you adamant about your physical standards for a partner?

February 25, 2012

Some chicks are skiinny and toned and don't work out. I've seen some of these women. They're "fit" but not "fit", if you know what I mean.

Notice I said people who "do it" and "stay fit". As in people who actually work out to look and feel a certain way. Someone taking action...not just someone who looks a certain way naturally and does nothing to upkeep themselves. Those folks can easily end up skinny-fat.

People who exercise (do it) want to look and feel better (stay fit).

Edited February 25, 2012 by kaylan

February 25, 2012

There's no social law against you having your preferences; however, the more narrow your standards, the longer it is going to take to find someone who fits them. By having a wider range of preferences, you have a wider range of partners to choose from.

Your friends have told you, you are overly picky. Have you ever considered that maybe they are right-that your criteria for what is "fit" maybe be a bit narrow?

Additionally, the more conventional your preferences, the even greater chance you're going to be waiting a long time. The majority of guys want a "fit, hot" girl. But that label encompasses maybe 30% of the single female population. (May be narrow or wider depending on your definition of "fit" and "hot.") So you are now competing against 75% of the male population for 30% of the female population. Again, totally in your rights to do this.... but then you also have to admit that you may have to compromise on other fronts, like how smart or kind the girl is, how long it takes you to find her, how much she is going to settle for YOU, etc.

Personally, I've always thought "I can't help what I'm attracted to" is kind of a cop-out. I think a lot of people are ignorant about what they actually want. I don't mean that you're lying to yourself about wanting a "fit" girlfriend... but more you aren't aware of how that short-term, superficial desire may be clashing with a stable, long-term desire.

What I mean is... do you want a long-term relationship that ends in marriage? I'm gonna assume yes. In that case, why is the girl being "fit" a criteria? From everything I've heard and read, marriage depends on a LOT more to keep it going than physical attractiveness. It depends on compatibility at the personal level. Can you and your partner make good decisions? Can you run a household together? Do you support and trust each other? Etc.

Looks don't really last as we get older. The girl who is "fit" now may lose her figure in pregnancy. Having babies does bizarre things to human females. So if you choose her with her body as a primary reason, you've just lost a main component of your marriage.

I'm not saying you need to date/marry someone you find unattractive. But you might find better long-term compatibility with someone who is "sort of fit" or "slightly chunky," then with someone who fits your current definition of "fit."

Better yet, you might have better long term potential with someone who has healthy HABITS. A lot of "fit" looking people actually have horrendous health habits that are going to catch up to them once youth fades off. Finding someone who doesn't have an ideal body, but eats right, exercises frequently, etc., would mean they have a better chance of maintaing their current (somewhat attractive) body.

Long story short, yeah, have your preferences. Just be aware your preferences may not be the best for short-term results or long-term potential.

February 25, 2012

i am not afraid to admit that i am shallow; looks matter a lot to me.

why do you think you are so special?!?

95% of society is the same way!

February 25, 2012

I have a preference for a guy who is built like an underwear model. When I say fit, I don't mean healthy; I mean that v-shaped shape, six pack abs, arms legs and ass. I don't like guys that only work out their "glamor muscles" and only work on their arms or only on their arms and abs; they need to work their entire body including legs and ass and back.

I am picky in terms of facial features; they need to be symmetrical. No acne. Straight teeth only; no crooked teeth. No yellow teeth. I like "conventionally attractive guys" and that means "Hollywood attractive" or "model type attractive", none of those "nerdy" looking or "unconventionally attractive guys for me". I don't like guys with big noses..

I live in L.A so this does not narrow my dating pool at all since MANY guys here fit as I described above. And yes, I am also good looking and very fit so I only ask for the equivalent of me.

And it is rigid; I would never be with someone with a gut or out of shape. I am not afraid to admit that I am shallow; LOOKS MATTER A LOT TO ME.

Yup, this is what I'm talking about not understanding.

February 25, 2012

Long story short, yeah, have your preferences. Just be aware your preferences may not be the best for short-term results or long-term potential.

This is true.

In truth I have no problem with people who have general expectations about what they want in a partner or even what they're attracted to. The problem comes when people have a laundry list that they think is even remotely realistic. He's got to be 6'3", muscular, stylish, have straight white teeth, be familiar with 18th century French poetry, love to travel, have a Masters degree and make 100k a year, and be "cultured". Men have similar expectations. It's like, where do you think these men (or women) are and how many of them do you think really exist? (this isn't really in reference to you in particular just in general)

And being someone with somewhat ridiculous preferences I harbor no illusions that finding someone (when I'm single) will be easy. Hardly anyone gets everything they're looking for in a partner.

Edited February 25, 2012 by aj22one

February 25, 2012

This is true.

In truth I have no problem with people who have general expectations about what they want in a partner or even what they're attracted to. The problem comes when people have a laundry list that they think is even remotely realistic. He's got to be 6'3", muscular, stylish, have straight white teeth, be familiar with 18th century French poetry, love to travel, have a Masters degree and make 100k a year, and be "cultured". Men have similar expectations. It's like, where do you think these men (or women) are and how many of them do you think really exist? (this isn't really in reference to you in particular just in general)

And being someone with somewhat ridiculous preferences I harbor no illusions that finding someone (when I'm single) will be easy. Hardly anyone gets everything they're looking for in a partner.

Maybe it's a result of having so many choices that SEEM available to us. If there are thousands of single people in your area, then there are bound to be a few who fit those preferences, right? It seems that the more choice there are, the more pickier people become. I think this is especially true of people who, well, think very highly of themselves. They see their partner as some kind of reinforcement of their own view of themselves. If they are hot and successful, they should have someone hot and successful.

There's also probably a good chunk of misunderstanding about what makes for a good, long term relationship. Most single people (in my age group, anyway) have never been married, and so don't really know what qualities make for a good husband/wife... so they pick out things they THINK matter but in the long run would barely contribute, if at all, to marriage bliss.

Example: I admit I have a strong attraction to smart guys who love to talk philosophy and obscure literature. But am I really going to be discussing that stuff at 2 am, when my toddler is puking over everything and has wet the bed? Definitely not. I'm going to want someone who can be calm in a crisis, is helpful, and supportive. Now it's possible all of these qualities COULD go together, but choosing obscure intelligence over reliability would be a losing bet.

February 25, 2012

Maybe it's a result of having so many choices that SEEM available to us. If there are thousands of single people in your area, then there are bound to be a few who fit those preferences, right? It seems that the more choice there are, the more pickier people become. I think this is especially true of people who, well, think very highly of themselves. They see their partner as some kind of reinforcement of their own view of themselves. If they are hot and successful, they should have someone hot and successful.

There's also probably a good chunk of misunderstanding about what makes for a good, long term relationship. Most single people (in my age group, anyway) have never been married, and so don't really know what qualities make for a good husband/wife... so they pick out things they THINK matter but in the long run would barely contribute, if at all, to marriage bliss.

Example: I admit I have a strong attraction to smart guys who love to talk philosophy and obscure literature. But am I really going to be discussing that stuff at 2 am, when my toddler is puking over everything and has wet the bed? Definitely not. I'm going to want someone who can be calm in a crisis, is helpful, and supportive. Now it's possible all of these qualities COULD go together, but choosing obscure intelligence over reliability would be a losing bet.

Well, I meant more in the way of opportunity costs. It's possible to meet someone who was good in crisis and liked obscure literature because those things can feasibly coexist. But if you were looking for someone who was very wealthy, worked out for 2 hours in the gym everyday, spent time becoming a wine connoisseur, read literature, and took charge in a crisis I would say most people just don't have the time to cultivate all of those qualities; even Renaissance people have their limits.

February 25, 2012

I don't understand the rigid laundry list either. I'm not someone who'll feel attraction for someone until I talk to them. I might think someone is cute, or that I like their demeanor, but attraction, in my case, is really premised on personality. So, in my case, I'd say the list goes (Personality traits I like) + (Is he cute). Then, when it comes time to consider being an exclusive relationship with someone it's (how well do we communicate) + (personality) + (sexual intimacy). The physical stuff seems no longer as important.

And, considering we all age beauty is only skin deep, this totally makes sense to me.

February 25, 2012

I don't understand the rigid laundry list either. I'm not someone who'll feel attraction for someone until I talk to them. I might think someone is cute, or that I like their demeanor, but attraction, in my case, is really premised on personality. So, in my case, I'd say the list goes (Personality traits I like) + (Is he cute). Then, when it comes time to consider being an exclusive relationship with someone it's (how well do we communicate) + (personality) + (sexual intimacy). The physical stuff seems no longer as important.

And, considering we all age beauty is only skin deep, this totally makes sense to me.

This. I've never had a 'list' with only physical features.

February 25, 2012

I don't understand the rigid laundry list either. I'm not someone who'll feel attraction for someone until I talk to them. I might think someone is cute, or that I like their demeanor, but attraction, in my case, is really premised on personality. So, in my case, I'd say the list goes (Personality traits I like) + (Is he cute). Then, when it comes time to consider being an exclusive relationship with someone it's (how well do we communicate) + (personality) + (sexual intimacy). The physical stuff seems no longer as important.

And, considering we all age beauty is only skin deep, this totally makes sense to me.

Yeah that sounds a lot more feasible approach to "having preferences." You might have some, but it sounds like you're more willing to toss it out the window based on individual interaction.

For example, as a whole, I don't like blonde guys. It just doesn't do it for me. And yet I've ended up dating two blonde guys, both of whom I found very attractive.

February 25, 2012

To be fair this thread is only about physical standards, which I assume is height, weight, body type, hair length, and maybe race. Still though the point remains.

February 25, 2012

To be fair this thread is only about physical standards, which I assume is height, weight, body type, hair length, and maybe race. Still though the point remains.

My answer is no, I am not adamant, and that's because personality has more weight with me than looks.

February 25, 2012

My answer is no, I am not adamant, and that's because personality has more weight with me than looks.

Do you think it's a gender discrepancy thing? It seems like the majority of men I know have at least one or two strict physical requirements, and the majority of women have one or two other-category requirement (must have extensive knowledge of fine wines, must be at least 5" taller than me in heels, etc.) Obviously some people cross over the gender line with their preferences, but that's been my experience.

February 25, 2012

My answer is no, I am not adamant, and that's because personality has more weight with me than looks.

Yeah I get that. The only physical "requirement" that I have is racial/ethnic (which really isn't something I came up with it's just that that's what I've always been attracted to). Personality is a lot more important.

Do you think it's a gender discrepancy thing? It seems like the majority of men I know have at least one or two strict physical requirements, and the majority of women have one or two other-category requirement (must have extensive knowledge of fine wines, must be at least 5" taller than me in heels, etc.) Obviously some people cross over the gender line with their preferences, but that's been my experience.

Plenty of women in this thread expressed rigid physical requirements. It's the same for both genders. It's like arguing which is more: 6 or a half a dozen.

February 25, 2012

I hear what you're saying, but that's pretty much how language works.

"Dollar" was first used as a term to describe a currency with a certain weight in silver. Now it means nothing more than a piece of paper with some numbers and a dead guy's face on it.

Do you think it's a gender discrepancy thing? It seems like the majority of men I know have at least one or two strict physical requirements, and the majority of women have one or two other-category requirement (must have extensive knowledge of fine wines, must be at least 5" taller than me in heels, etc.) Obviously some people cross over the gender line with their preferences, but that's been my experience.

Eh, I think the 5" taller in heels thing is considered a physical requirement.

Otherwise, I do agree that the men I know, in general, are more visually-oriented than the women I know. However, I am not certain that the women I know are 'better', as their criteria often includes stuff like 'treats me like a princess and spoils me with indulgent gifts', etc. Well, they don't say it that way, but I see it.

February 25, 2012

Do you think it's a gender discrepancy thing? It seems like the majority of men I know have at least one or two strict physical requirements, and the majority of women have one or two other-category requirement (must have extensive knowledge of fine wines, must be at least 5" taller than me in heels, etc.) Obviously some people cross over the gender line with their preferences, but that's been my experience.

It could be. To me it's all linked to pride. Someone on this thread (I think it was Kaylan) said something to the effect that they like walking around with a hot woman on their arm. It's not the first time I come across this line of thought. For heterosexual women, the pride seems to be about being with someone who is admired (that leaves many options open: the man could be admired for one of the following: physique, creativity, well-liked, rich, etc). For heterosexual men, I wonder if it's mostly physical. Not to mention... They get to feel admired if they're walking around with a hot woman on their arm.

February 25, 2012

Do you think it's a gender discrepancy thing? It seems like the majority of men I know have at least one or two strict physical requirements, and the majority of women have one or two other-category requirement (must have extensive knowledge of fine wines, must be at least 5" taller than me in heels, etc.) Obviously some people cross over the gender line with their preferences, but that's been my experience.

That must be tough, since average height is like 5'10''.

February 25, 2012

Do you think it's a gender discrepancy thing? It seems like the majority of men I know have at least one or two strict physical requirements, and the majority of women have one or two other-category requirement (must have extensive knowledge of fine wines, must be at least 5" taller than me in heels, etc.) Obviously some people cross over the gender line with their preferences, but that's been my experience.

WHy is it any less shallow have some rigid requirements like must be 5 inches taller then me even in heels to me thats still mind numbingly shallow and limiting your options unless you're around 5 feet

Plus the only person in this thread who said they need movie star looks in a partner was a women

February 25, 2012

There's no social law against you having your preferences; however, the more narrow your standards, the longer it is going to take to find someone who fits them. By having a wider range of preferences, you have a wider range of partners to choose from.

Your friends have told you, you are overly picky. Have you ever considered that maybe they are right-that your criteria for what is "fit" maybe be a bit narrow?

I understand your point, but I know myself. Im most attracted to fit chix, and I can see myself wanting someone else if I get into a relationship with someone Im not super attracted to.

Im a bit picky, but I also think some of my friends just take what they can get. An old guy friend of mine would hook up with really unattractive girls just for the sake of getting laid...ugh. My criteria of fit isnt too narrow I dont think. I just want someone whos of a healthy weight, and isnt pudgy. Preferably someone who works out too.

Additionally, the more conventional your preferences, the even greater chance you're going to be waiting a long time. The majority of guys want a "fit, hot" girl. But that label encompasses maybe 30% of the single female population. (May be narrow or wider depending on your definition of "fit" and "hot.") So you are now competing against 75% of the male population for 30% of the female population. Again, totally in your rights to do this.... but then you also have to admit that you may have to compromise on other fronts, like how smart or kind the girl is, how long it takes you to find her, how much she is going to settle for YOU, etc.

Im not competing with 75% of guys =P. Most guys I come across arent in as good of shape as I am. But thats easy to do in America since many are out of shape or overweight. Guys and gals who are actually fit and toned are in the minority...and most fit chicks I see are dating a guy in shape. Too many Americans let themselves go, so I dont worry much about competition to be honest.

My location prolly has a lot to do with what Im seeing. I grew up in NYC and there were plenty of attractive fit gals down there. I moved to the suburbs for college 4 years back and there not as many people in general, let alone fit folks. When I moved back to the city in the fall for a couple months after graduation, I was culture shocked.

I grew up in the city but I got so used to the difference in fashion and shape of the people in the suburbs. I much prefer the stylish sexy gals of the city(of all ages). Hopefully I get to move back soon instead of being forced to commute there.

Personally, I've always thought "I can't help what I'm attracted to" is kind of a cop-out. I think a lot of people are ignorant about what they actually want. I don't mean that you're lying to yourself about wanting a "fit" girlfriend... but more you aren't aware of how that short-term, superficial desire may be clashing with a stable, long-term desire.

Attraction isnt a choice...so people really cant help what they are attracted to. Im attracted to a variety of women, but Im MOST attracted to a specific type. Fit chicks get a rise out of me unlike any other women. When dating those type of gals, I dont even have eyes for other girls because Im already with the type of girl who gets me going the most.

I know exactly what I want. Ive always dated a specific type of woman shape wise. I need long term attraction for a long term relationship dont I? I get it from these gals.

What I mean is... do you want a long-term relationship that ends in marriage? I'm gonna assume yes. In that case, why is the girl being "fit" a criteria? From everything I've heard and read, marriage depends on a LOT more to keep it going than physical attractiveness. It depends on compatibility at the personal level. Can you and your partner make good decisions? Can you run a household together? Do you support and trust each other? Etc.

Yes marriage is a lot more than physical attraction but its still apart of it.

Mental attraction is huge for me. Should I settle on a chick I have Ok conversations with? Nope I wont, because Ive had insane intellectual stimulation from my ex girlfriend, and I love clicking with someone like that. So physical attraction works the same way for me. I know what I like and need.

Looks don't really last as we get older. The girl who is "fit" now may lose her figure in pregnancy. Having babies does bizarre things to human females. So if you choose her with her body as a primary reason, you've just lost a main component of your marriage.

I hate this argument. I seriously cant stand the "looks fade anyway" argument.

Life is too short. Why not enjoy what I want while Im young? Why not just enjoy what I want while Im alive actually? If you really want to use the "looks fade anyway" argument, then I guess people should date people regardless of physical attraction. I should date a woman I consider fat and ugly because we get along and she would make a good wife. Never mind the fact that we would end up in a sexless marriage and divorcing because I find myself wanting other women over her.

Physical characteristics arent the sole component of a partner, but def one of the main ones. Lets be realistic here. Yes I know pregnancy does turn a womens body on its head...but the kind I chick I like wouldnt be content with letting pregnancy ruin her body for the rest of her life. Most chicks Ive talked to who like to work out are serious about getting back in shape after they have their children.

I even know a chick who would rather adopt because she doesnt want to put her body through that. Its her prerogative and there are plenty of kids waiting to be adopted who need good homes.

I'm not saying you need to date/marry someone you find unattractive. But you might find better long-term compatibility with someone who is "sort of fit" or "slightly chunky," then with someone who fits your current definition of "fit."

Possibly so, but also possibly not so.

As I said before, in the same way mental and emotional attraction are important, so is physical attraction.

Better yet, you might have better long term potential with someone who has healthy HABITS. A lot of "fit" looking people actually have horrendous health habits that are going to catch up to them once youth fades off. Finding someone who doesn't have an ideal body, but eats right, exercises frequently, etc., would mean they have a better chance of maintaing their current (somewhat attractive) body.

Long story short, yeah, have your preferences. Just be aware your preferences may not be the best for short-term results or long-term potential.

Youve seen enough of my posts to know Im keen to a chick who actually works out. Not someone who simply looks fit. Either way, someone who just looks fit generally has genetics on their side in terms of health.

What I really think I need to do is simply move. That or America needs to get healthy again.

February 25, 2012

For me; personality is not enough to override poor looks or looks that I am not attracted to. Not even close.

Well, at least you are open and honest with that opinion. Hats off to you.

I would have to say that both men and women are the same as far as pickiness is concerned with only physical looks. Plenty of women have very rigid requirements looks wise and men do as well. Fact is; looks matter for both genders. Unless you come across one of those hippies or "deep" people who don't care about looks (they exist; I'm just not one of them).

I think physical requirements vary from person to person. Some people want a guy with only a six pack, if he's got a four pack he's no good because he clearly doesn't work out hard enough. For others a guy who's fit but not ripped is perfectly ok. A girl who's average build is fine for some but for other guys they want a girl who's really thin or toned. The world is a better place with all of these opinions being allowed to exist.

February 25, 2012

I'm not overly picky about it. But I do have standards.

First I ask her to step onto a scale. Following that I have a plastic form I'll ask her to lie down in. If she fits into the form within certain allowances, I scan her with a spectrometer. Skin tone is important. Then I yank a hair from her head and measure it for length, flexibility and tensile strength, and then put it into a machine that flexes it over and over to measure its durability. Lift her lip and check teeth and count fillings. Then I ask her to speak into a microphone and analyze her voice on an oscilloscope. I count skin blemishes and check fingernails and toenails. Next is the VO2 max test and an underwater fat test.

That's the plan anyway. Usually before the plastic form test, they storm out. I'm pretty sure that's out of frustration, knowing they aren't going to pass one of the other upcoming tests. It's a lot of pressure.

February 25, 2012

For me; personality is not enough to override poor looks or looks that I am not attracted to. Not even close.

It's okay to have some preferences, but some take it too far and reject people who they would otherwise have a good long term relationship with.

Does this apply to initial attraction or are you including long-term attraction?

If you're including long-term, then what's going to happen when their looks fade? Or, what would you do if your spouse was in an accident or had an illness resulting in disfigurement or disability? Will their personality then override or will you call it quits?

What if you were the one in the accident or had the illness? Would you expect your spouse to stay based on your personality or would you be okay if they said you're no longer physically attractive and leave you as a result?

Edited February 25, 2012 by westrock

February 25, 2012

People who have a laundry list to me aren't doing much wrong, they at least know what they want IMO. They see people who don't have any preferences as wishy-washy though, which I disagree with, some people are just more accommodating naturally.

I will date a big girl, but it probably wouldn't be a regular occurrence personally. I am of the opinion that if I cannot match the standards I look for in a girl, then I will not date seriously.

February 25, 2012

I'm not overly picky about it. But I do have standards.

First I ask her to step onto a scale. Following that I have a plastic form I'll ask her to lie down in. If she fits into the form within certain allowances, I scan her with a spectrometer. Skin tone is important. Then I yank a hair from her head and measure it for length, flexibility and tensile strength, and then put it into a machine that flexes it over and over to measure its durability. Lift her lip and check teeth and count fillings. Then I ask her to speak into a microphone and analyze her voice on an oscilloscope. I count skin blemishes and check fingernails and toenails. Next is the VO2 max test and an underwater fat test.

That's the plan anyway. Usually before the plastic form test, they storm out. I'm pretty sure that's out of frustration, knowing they aren't going to pass one of the other upcoming tests. It's a lot of pressure.

Now don't I feel stupid for my answer.

February 25, 2012

I have a preference for a guy who is built like an underwear model. When I say fit, I don't mean healthy; I mean that v-shaped shape, six pack abs, arms legs and ass. I don't like guys that only work out their "glamor muscles" and only work on their arms or only on their arms and abs; they need to work their entire body including legs and ass and back.

I am picky in terms of facial features; they need to be symmetrical. No acne. Straight teeth only; no crooked teeth. No yellow teeth. I like "conventionally attractive guys" and that means "Hollywood attractive" or "model type attractive", none of those "nerdy" looking or "unconventionally attractive guys for me". I don't like guys with big noses..

I live in L.A so this does not narrow my dating pool at all since MANY guys here fit as I described above. And yes, I am also good looking and very fit so I only ask for the equivalent of me.

And it is rigid; I would never be with someone with a gut or out of shape. I am not afraid to admit that I am shallow; LOOKS MATTER A LOT TO ME.

Youre right about the "glamour" parts of peoples bodies. I notice girls do this too....they simply do cardio at the gym and thats it because they think lifting any weight will make them "bulky like a guy":rolleyes: Wish more chicks would tone up some after they lose weight with cardio. Firm is good. And a lot of folks who workout definitely dont focus on their lower body like they should. O wells.

And im not as picky as you about facial features...plus hollywood does have a variety of facial features in its stars. I do want a girl to have nice teeth though.

Btw how old are you? Im curious. And cool beans for being honest. I think many people prefer an empirically attractive person but just dont say so because they dont wanna be seen as shallow. I dont think its shallow though.

Sign In

Are you adamant about your physical standards for a partner?

Recommended Posts

kaylan

verhrzn

jobaba

Engadget

aj22one

verhrzn

aj22one

Kamille

denise_xo

verhrzn

aj22one

Kamille

verhrzn

aj22one

Els

Kamille

Engadget

PJKino

kaylan

aj22one

johan

westrock

ThaWholigan

ptp

kaylan

What's New

My Activity Streams

More...