The "Shallow" Debate

[therhythm]

What's shallow about wanting casual relationships in which both parties understand and agree to it? Stop it.

 

How do you decide with whom do you have casual sex? Do you read with those women philosophy and talk about Tolstoj?

[therhythm]

How do you decide with whom do you have casual sex? Do you read with those women philosophy and talk about Tolstoj?

 

Or maybe you meet them in charity acts and distributing food for the poor people?

[therhythm]

Got to go... people is waiting for me but OP... you have been bitten by your own thread...

Casual sex is as shallow as it can get... people choosing to have sex with each other based on their physical attraction without any other further connection

 

I have no issues with it but you can't go showing your higher standards and then go and do what you are condemning .... well you can say it (before my literal pirate friend comes to remember me that) but it is being an hypocrite

[MrCastle]

Would you have casual sex with a woman with a very ugly face? Because if not then is much like rejecting a woman for a flat chest

 

I explained the difference in my first post.

 

Because face is not as rigid as other stuff. A flat chest is a flat chest, there is no other type. You either have boobs or you don't.

 

Faces come in different varieties. If I said I only go after blue eyes, with full lips, or other specific traits, I could see that being too picky/shallow.

 

An attractive face to me takes many different forms.

[MrCastle]

Got to go... people is waiting for me but OP... you have been bitten by your own thread...

Casual sex is as shallow as it can get... people choosing to have sex with each other based on their physical attraction without any other further connection

 

I have no issues with it but you can't go showing your higher standards and then go and do what you are condemning .... well you can say it (before my literal pirate friend comes to remember me that) but it is being an hypocrite

 

I think the debate was whether or not people believe in shallowness, and if so, how do they define it.

 

The last two threads have somewhat deviated from that topic and instead have focused on my own personal feelings on it as opposed to stating your own and leaving the thread.

[therhythm]

I explained the difference in my first post.

 

Because face is not as rigid as other stuff. A flat chest is a flat chest, there is no other type. You either have boobs or you don't.

 

Faces come in different varieties. If I said I only go after blue eyes, with full lips, or other specific traits, I could see that being too picky/shallow.

 

An attractive face to me takes many different forms.

 

Ok... so when you choose someone because her face you are not shallow but when you do it for something different you are.... :lmao:

I see you mark the limits where is comfortable for you

 

A pretty face or a nice ass or a nice breast ....is all physical conditions

[MrCastle]

I think the debate was whether or not people believe in shallowness, and if so, how do they define it.

 

The last two threads have somewhat deviated from that topic and instead have focused on my own personal feelings on it as opposed to stating your own and leaving the thread.

 

Whoops...Pages*

[MrCastle]

Ok... so when you choose someone because her face you are not shallow but when you do it for something different you are.... :lmao:

I see you mark the limits where is comfortable for you

 

A pretty face or a nice ass or a nice breast ....is all physical conditions

 

Again, I covered your side of the argument in my first post, even asked myself if what I do is indeed shallow. All of this was covered in the first post.

 

If you have nothing further to add, then let's move the discussion forward.

[Eternal Sunshine]

C'mon guys, do you need to bring casual sex into every Castle's thread?

 

Seriously?

[KungFuJoe]

Not defensive at all. Explain how two people consenting to a casual relationship is akin to me rejecting a woman because she has a flat chest?

 

My point is that you want what you want. It is neither right or wrong...good or bad.

 

Someone who rejects a woman for a flat chest is no different than rejecting someone for wanting something more than casual.

[MrCastle]

This thread is shallow

 

Na bro seven pages? That's deep

[MrCastle]

So these last few pages, is this another stance in which we're saying we're all shallow in some form or another?

 

C'mon guys, do you need to bring casual sex into every Castle's thread?

 

Seriously?

 

Can't blame them. It's a sexy topic.

[BradJacobs]

It's a deficiency in attraction. Whether it's her not being pretty enough or me not being rich enough it still boils down to not having something the other person needs you to have in order to be attractive.

 

I have no right to accuse someone of being shallow when I am guilty of being shallow myself.

[KungFuJoe]

So these last few pages, is this another stance in which we're saying we're all shallow in some form or another?

 

You might say that.

 

I prefer to say that shallow doesn't exist...but saying we are all shallow in our own ways is just what I've been saying all along.

 

You want what you want.

 

It's a simple concept that goes way overblown, just like most of the topics around here in regards to attraction.

[tbf]

You might say that.

 

I prefer to say that shallow doesn't exist...but saying we are all shallow in our own ways is just what I've been saying all along.

 

You want what you want.

 

It's a simple concept that goes way overblown, just like most of the topics around here in regards to attraction.

No it's not. Resoundingly shallow people exist.

[MrCastle]

You might say that.

 

I prefer to say that shallow doesn't exist...but saying we are all shallow in our own ways is just what I've been saying all along.

 

You want what you want.

 

It's a simple concept that goes way overblown, just like most of the topics around here in regards to attraction.

 

Well, again, this is an online forum. We break everything down. I'm going to continue calling people I find (by my standards) to be shallow and be done with it. I've done it for 25 years with no backlash. In real life, this is not an issue.

 

But then again, a lot of issues on here are not issues in real life.

[MrCastle]

No it's not. Resoundingly shallow people exist.

 

Why can't you double like a post? Triple, even.

[ThaWholigan]

You might say that.

 

I prefer to say that shallow doesn't exist...but saying we are all shallow in our own ways is just what I've been saying all along.

 

You want what you want.

 

It's a simple concept that goes way overblown, just like most of the topics around here in regards to attraction.

Agree to an extent - I think shallow does exist. Some people are indeed more superficial than others in more than just a physical sense too, with regards to attraction.

 

I personally don't think this is always bad, but it can be a detrimental way to live and is undesirable to people who perhaps have more perceived substance.

[Divasu]

I think the debate was whether or not people believe in shallowness, and if so, how do they define it.

 

Shallow, in terms of interpersonal relationships, I define as the inability to love another human being and remain monogamous for a prolonged period of time. Love is a choice, an action, and a commitment and requires a level of unselfishness. Who/what we are attracted to, is open for debate, in terms of shallowness.

 

The opposite, I suppose, is no capacity to engage in anything other than the above. IF a person's primary motivation is to merely connect with another human being for the sole purpose of having sex with them and then discarding, yes that in itself can be considered shallow behavior.

 

It's considered shallow, because you are essentially using each other, 'to get off' which requires no emotional investment.

 

Shallow = of little depth

[MrCastle]

Agree to an extent - I think shallow does exist. Some people are indeed more superficial than others in more than just a physical sense too, with regards to attraction.

 

This is what I believe. I don't agree with the idea that we're all shallow equally. Some people put a greater emphasis on the physical and the material than others. That's life. We've met these people. All of us have.

[veggirl]

Being "too shallow" seems like such a rare thing.

 

you know what's a bigger problem than being shallow? Being desperate & insecure, taking what you can get and staying in a ****ty situation because you are scared to be alone.

 

tbh most people need to be MORE picky, not less.

 

but IDK if shallow is looks only? maybe people need to be more "shallow" when it comes to personality.

 

desperation is the problem I see the most, not shallowness.

[MrCastle]

Being "too shallow" seems like such a rare thing.

 

you know what's a bigger problem than being shallow? Being desperate & insecure, taking what you can get and staying in a ****ty situation because you are scared to be alone.

 

tbh most people need to be MORE picky, not less.

 

but IDK if shallow is looks only? maybe people need to be more "shallow" when it comes to personality.

 

desperation is the problem I see the most, not shallowness.

 

I think society is too picky when it comes to looks and not picky enough when it comes to personality traits.

 

I can see the argument for why shallowness can lend itself to both the physical and the personal, but really I only see it as looks based.

 

"Eh, he's short, next."

 

"Eh, she does drugs. I only date non drug users. Next."

 

What sounds more shallow?

 

I mean honesty, loyalty, ambition, other positive traits, should be expected of people. People can work on their personality if they're constantly being rejected for it. You can't do anything to drastically change your looks. On certain things yes, other things no.

 

I don't think if a girl dumped her man because he cheated, people would say she's shallow because she's putting too high an emphasis on loyalty. Know what I mean?

[veggirl]

The points about a connection overruling whatever-dealbreaker confuses me.

 

I don't believe that you will have one connection that supercedes all. I mean, my first bf I thought we had an amazing connection (we did) that could NEVER BE TOPPED. but....with my bf now, I think we have an amazing connection that tops the old one.

 

I connect with lots of people, in different ways. If my bf and I were to break up, eventually I'd connect this well with someone else. I'm not putting aside my dealbreakers (shallow or not) for the sake of a connection because from past experiences I know i can feel that way with someone else if it doesn't work out with "you".

 

I don't believe that i will connect so uniquely with someone that it couldn't be matched by someone else. I think that is the stuff "soulmates" and whatnot is born from and I don't believe in that ****. I mean if you are gonna only have one amazing romantic connection in the whole world...what are your chances of finding that? nah you can connect amazingly, romantically, intellectually, emotionally with many people. I don't think a connection should overrule dealbreakers. Are some people's dealbreakers crazy to me, yeah...but whatever, like KFJ said it is what it is, if someone wants a 6ft man with a 6 figure job and a 6 pack and she is a waitress at Dennys with belly rolls...that's her problem and I pity her.

[MrCastle]

The points about a connection overruling whatever-dealbreaker confuses me.

 

I don't believe that you will have one connection that supercedes all. I mean, my first bf I thought we had an amazing connection (we did) that could NEVER BE TOPPED. but....with my bf now, I think we have an amazing connection that tops the old one.

 

I connect with lots of people, in different ways. If my bf and I were to break up, eventually I'd connect this well with someone else. I'm not putting aside my dealbreakers (shallow or not) for the sake of a connection because from past experiences I know i can feel that way with someone else if it doesn't work out with "you".

 

I don't believe that i will connect so uniquely with someone that it couldn't be matched by someone else. I think that is the stuff "soulmates" and whatnot is born from and I don't believe in that ****. I mean if you are gonna only have one amazing romantic connection in the whole world...what are your chances of finding that? nah you can connect amazingly, romantically, intellectually, emotionally with many people. I don't think a connection should overrule dealbreakers. Are some people's dealbreakers crazy to me, yeah...but whatever, like KFJ said it is what it is, if someone wants a 6ft man with a 6 figure job and a 6 pack and she is a waitress at Dennys with belly rolls...that's her problem and I pity her.

 

So in your example, you wouldn't classify the waitress as shallow?

[veggirl]

I think society is too picky when it comes to looks and not picky enough when it comes to personality traits.

 

I can see the argument for why shallowness can lend itself to both the physical and the personal, but really I only see it as looks based.

 

"Eh, he's short, next."

 

"Eh, she does drugs. I only date non drug users. Next."

 

What sounds more shallow?

 

I mean honesty, loyalty, ambition, other positive traits, should be expected of people. People can work on their personality if they're constantly being rejected for it. You can't do anything to drastically change your looks. On certain things yes, other things no.

 

I don't think if a girl dumped her man because he cheated, people would say she's shallow because she's putting too high an emphasis on loyalty. Know what I mean?

 

I think this type of shallowness "omg he's only 5'9, next!" and whatnot was born and bred on the internet. It's a by-product of OLD. The only place I hear about dealbreakers like that is online, by people who date online.