i think ill settle for ugly

[fireflywy]

Yes, but it is often difficult to distinguish between one case and another. I've never had any luck with women; I've tried approaching a couple and gotten rejected and been assured by the denizens of the internet that I didn't do anything wrong, just take it in stride, I never feel sure, never know if I'm not just repeating some old mistake that no one will ever point out.

 

Also not having many friends, and none who go out a lot (married types and wrokaholics) and working a lot myself, I think cold approach is almost the only way to go for me. Which is unfortunate as my milquetoast introverted personality is not cut out for cold approaching.

 

 

But of course, until someone figures out how to punch me in the face through the internet for making them angry, I will always feel safer debating in writing, a safe distance away from my interlocutor. Lol.

 

 

I think I went out with her once. The things she can do with those extra long fingers!

 

I went out with her once too. She dumped me for a guy who made more money and had a six pack. He took her because all of the average to attractive women were deeply involved in hypergamy. Lol

[mynailpolishchipped]

I got in trouble for using names in my title. I can't figure out how to edit the titles.

 

Oh, look, if I scroll down I can copy the quotes. hehe.

John Doe

But of course, until someone figures out how to punch me in the face through the internet for making them angry, I will always feel safer debating in writing, a safe distance away from my interlocutor. Lol.

 

 

Oh I just can't speak in public. Well, thats not true. I can speak to a CROWD quite easily. I just don't do well one on one or with small groups.

[johndoe2]

And one more thing, you know why men are more afflicted by depression? Because they realize they screwed up too late to do anything about it.

Just so you know, not every man in the world is your ex husband. Sometimes, believe it or not, the wife never directly tells her husband she's unhappy or something is wrong because she thinks he's just supposed to pick up on all her subtle cues, and he never finds out his marriage is in trouble until she gives him the divorce papers. Lack of communication is not a one-way street. It's not always the man who screwed up, despite what all the sitcoms say.

 

THAT is why men get more depressed afterwards. This PATRIARCHAL society we live in makes men afraid to confront their inner demons, so they look outside of themselves, and it is only after a length of time that it hits them..."Oh. love isn't a stagnant state that is or is not. I have to work at it."

I still don't think 'patriarchy' has anything to do with this. See what happens to a lot of men who are as open with their feelings as women are, socially speaking, and you might appreciate that is as often a pragmatic choice.

 

John Doe, I do not believe in soul mates, but I do believe there is a lady out there (sans mustache) for you. But, take a lesson from my husband. Don't justify your lack by demonizing others. Change either your approach, or what you are looking for. That doesn't mean you have to settle. That isn't fair to you, or her. But, I can bet you this, even that hot chick with legs up to her ears is going to have sagging breasts and crows feet in 20 years. So, maybe stop focusing on the without, and look at the within...which means a cold approach at the bar is never going to be the way to go.

I'm to the point where I'm not looking for anything in particular; I'm willing to take all comers (almost all, at least). I'd give almost any woman who's interested a chance. Suffice it to say though the queue isn't exactly a mile long.

[johndoe2]

Oh I just can't speak in public. Well, thats not true. I can speak to a CROWD quite easily. I just don't do well one on one or with small groups.

I can't speak to crowds. I have anxiety disorder and it's at its worst with speaking in front of crowds. I turn bright red and my hands start shaking and I start to stutter. There are kinds of physical torture I would rather endure than have to give a public speech. Small groups though, I become aware that I know more about the subject than everyone else, I can turn into the Dos Equis guy ('the most interesting man in the world') and dominate the conversation. But once it becomes a crowd, I turn into Forrest Gump.

[johndoe2]

Settling for an ugly girl. That just sounds bad, doesn't it? I think the issue here might be the way people go about it. If a guy goes on a date with a girl that he thinks is ugly, thinking that he can do better, odds are, that attitude will shine through.

Um, doesn't the fact that he's settling for her mean he doesn't think he can do better?

 

There is a difference between settling for an ugly girl because you have no other options, and deciding to tweak your standards a bit in favor of less superficial qualities.

Not really. The only difference is semantic. Saying "I'm tweaking my standards for such and such a reason" is just face-saving.

 

You seem to think there's something condescending about settling for the ugly girl. In fact, a guy is only settling because he realizes that he himself isn't attractive. I know I'm not attractive, so I don't expect beautiful women to be receptive to me. I have to base my standards on what I know about my own features, which are beyond my power to change.

 

We can't just go around pretending attractiveness is subjective. Some people are more attractive than others; they are attractive to more people, they have a broader pool of potentials. That's a fact. And their pool of potentials influences their selectivity in who they date. Why is this a controversial assertion?

[elaine567]

Easiest way to quote a person's post is to press the quote button at the bottom right hand side of the individual post and then edit out the bits you do not want.

 

I can't speak to crowds. I have anxiety disorder and it's at its worst with speaking in front of crowds. I turn bright red and my hands start shaking and I start to stutter. There are kinds of physical torture I would rather endure than have to give a public speech. Small groups though, I become aware that I know more about the subject than everyone else, I can turn into the Dos Equis guy ('the most interesting man in the world') and dominate the conversation. But once it becomes a crowd, I turn into Forrest Gump.

 

can be edited to

 

I can't speak to crowds. ... I turn into Forrest Gump.

 

or press the multi quote button in the individual posts then the quote button to get:-

 

I got in trouble for using names in my title. I can't figure out how to edit the titles.

Oh, look, if I scroll down I can copy the quotes. hehe.

John Doe

But of course, until someone figures out how to punch me in the face through the internet for making them angry, I will always feel safer debating in writing, a safe distance away from my interlocutor. Lol.

Oh I just can't speak in public. Well, thats not true. I can speak to a CROWD quite easily. I just don't do well one on one or with small groups.

 

I can't speak to crowds. I have anxiety disorder and it's at its worst with speaking in front of crowds. I turn bright red and my hands start shaking and I start to stutter. There are kinds of physical torture I would rather endure than have to give a public speech. Small groups though, I become aware that I know more about the subject than everyone else, I can turn into the Dos Equis guy ('the most interesting man in the world') and dominate the conversation. But once it becomes a crowd, I turn into Forrest Gump.

[Taramere]

Settling for an ugly girl. That just sounds bad, doesn't it? I think the issue here might be the way people go about it. If a guy goes on a date with a girl that he thinks is ugly, thinking that he can do better, odds are, that attitude will shine through.

 

Raise your hands ladies, how many of you want to be with a guy that thinks you're too ugly for him, and that due to his lack of choices, he will date you anyway? (I don't expect to see many hands go up)

 

Right. It just sounds like a recipe for the most unhappy and depressing relationship imaginable. I have a friend who was married to a very stunning girl years back. It was a terrible pairing, and he wasn't a very likeable person while he was in it. He fell apart when it was over. Now he's married to a really nice woman who is not an oil painting by any stretch. But, she's right for him - and being with her has just been the making of him somehow. He's a far happier person now, and a good one to be around.

 

Threads like this can be a depressing experience. Thank you for your post, which lifted it up somewhat. I think when women respond very negatively to the kind of posts that can be found in this thread, there's an assumption from a lot of men that women are taking offence because "they're ugly" or some other reason related to the woman's own insecurity. I think it's more just that threads like this aren't exactly humanity at its best. We see and hear what's great about human beings through films, music, theatre, books, scientific discovery, the development of complex and profound philosophies.

 

The human beings who bring us these things are inspiring and uplifting. Then at the other end of the scale are the wet blankets. Among them, guys who come out with depressing dross along the lines of "I can't get a good looking woman so I'll have to settle for an ugly one." Compared to what a human being can be...somebody like that, who doesn't seem capable of assessing women beyond "good looking" or "ugly" just comes across as a disappointment. Who wants to be around anybody with such a depressingly limited perspective?

 

A guy like that might become frustrated because he "can't even get an ugly woman". Meantime, from the "ugly woman's" perspective it might be the case that regardless of what people think about her looks, she has a passion for life that makes her a great person to be around. Like my friend's wife. He didn't "settle" for her. She brought magic into his world. I can't imagine anybody who knows the pair of them would ever describe her as "ugly". They might readily agree that she isn't the raving beauty his ex wife was - but who cares? She's a great person to be around, she makes people feel happy. The word "ugly" applied to a woman like that just says more about the limitations of the person using it than it would about anybody else.

 

The internet is full of guys who were the way my friend was before he met his first wife. He got this gorgeous "model in miniature" wife, and it probably boosted up the insecure and narcissistic aspects of him to a certain extent. But the price of narcissism being boosted on a short term basis can be a terrible one, and he paid it. Now, a long time later, he's a happy and functional guy who adores his wife to distraction because she's a major part of that happiness. I believe a lot of guys out there who might have aesthetically more appealing girlfriends or wives would probably envy him his happiness.

 

He won that happiness by putting to one side the narcissistic need to impress (with a flash car or a hot girlfriend) and just doing what actually made him happy. Regardless of what other people thought of it (and in fact, other people think it's absolutely great)

Edited June 14, 2015 by Taramere

[elaine567]

Um, doesn't the fact that he's settling for her mean he doesn't think he can do better?

 

Not really. The only difference is semantic. Saying "I'm tweaking my standards for such and such a reason" is just face-saving.

 

You seem to think there's something condescending about settling for the ugly girl. In fact, a guy is only settling because he realizes that he himself isn't attractive. I know I'm not attractive, so I don't expect beautiful women to be receptive to me. I have to base my standards on what I know about my own features, which are beyond my power to change.

 

We can't just go around pretending attractiveness is subjective. Some people are more attractive than others; they are attractive to more people, they have a broader pool of potentials. That's a fact. And their pool of potentials influences their selectivity in who they date. Why is this a controversial assertion?

 

But this is all assuming that attractiveness is the only criteria that is worth anything. The skill in which she applies her make up, styles her hair or wears her clothes and the cuteness of her nose and the size of her bum,are sooo important that they eclipse all other factors? Really?

 

Relationships are for life, someone has to tick a lot of boxes, if that relationship is going to survive.

For some attractiveness is a huge box that needs ticked and it doesn't seem to matter if the object of that attraction is a complete idiot or a lunatic, the evidence is here on this forum.

The glee in attracting that 10 and the despair in attracting the 5.

The obvious incompatibility - but he/she is good looking, and that appears for some to trump all.

 

Smart people seeking a life partner, surely need to look beyond the superficial?

[trippi1432]

After reading this thread, me thinks that a lot of people forget what attractiveness really is. Very sad. :(

[johndoe2]

When more people start to figure this out, these threads won't exist.

And until then, we can choose to live as though the world is as we'd like it to be, or to live in it as it is.

 

But this is all assuming that attractiveness is the only criteria that is worth anything. The skill in which she applies her make up, styles her hair or wears her clothes and the cuteness of her nose and the size of her bum,are sooo important that they eclipse all other factors? Really?

Not necessarily assuming it's the only criterion. Just that it's an important one.

 

Right. It just sounds like a recipe for the most unhappy and depressing relationship imaginable. I have a friend who was married to a very stunning girl years back. It was a terrible pairing, and he wasn't a very likeable person while he was in it. He fell apart when it was over. Now he's married to a really nice woman who is not an oil painting by any stretch. But, she's right for him - and being with her has just been the making of him somehow. He's a far happier person now, and a good one to be around.

 

Threads like this can be a depressing experience. Thank you for your post, which lifted it up somewhat. I think when women respond very negatively to the kind of posts that can be found in this thread, there's an assumption from a lot of men that women are taking offence because "they're ugly" or some other reason related to the woman's own insecurity. I think it's more just that threads like this aren't exactly humanity at its best. We see and hear what's great about human beings through films, music, theatre, books, scientific discovery, the development of complex and profound philosophies.

 

The human beings who bring us these things are inspiring and uplifting. Then at the other end of the scale are the wet blankets. Among them, guys who come out with depressing dross along the lines of "I can't get a good looking woman so I'll have to settle for an ugly one." Compared to what a human being can be...somebody like that, who doesn't seem capable of assessing women beyond "good looking" or "ugly" just comes across as a disappointment. Who wants to be around anybody with such a depressingly limited perspective?

So pick a different word, "not conventionally attractive", whatever, same meaning.

 

I get the impression you're not altogether getting the point here, or mine at least (can't speak for the OP).

 

In my case, this has little (or nothing) to do with judging the quality of the woman based on her appearance. Rather, it is about preemptive self-selection. I didn't waste time or money applying to universities I knew I wouldn't get into. I wouldn't waste the time to apply for a job I know I'm not qualified for. Does this mean I'm degrading the universities I did apply to, and the jobs I do apply for?

 

I wouldn't say so. Those jobs or universities are of course less in demand than the ones I knew I couldn't get (or get into). We can 'subjectify' all we want, and talk all the fine points of Rutgers and why Harvard isn't for everyone, but Rutgers is not as prestigious or as much in demand as Harvard, whatever the reasons for that may be.

 

Now, a woman's attractiveness has an impact on her accessibility, especially to unattractive men. And to go out with her or get into a relationship with her, he has to actually get her to notice him, talk to him, and say yes when he asks her out. You talk about all this like it's a matter of choice, when it clearly isn't. I can't just pick the woman who strikes my fancy. She has to actually be receptive.

 

And that's why focusing on less attractive women makes sense.They will generally be more receptive. Why? Well because there's less competition for their attention. I think it's hard to argue that this is not generally the case.

And what exactly is so wrong with that? It boggles my mind that women seem to object to the idea of men lowering their physical standards when it comes to seeking women. They're too high, they're too low, whatever the case, we can't win.

 

We only have so much time in life and so much energy. Why is it not sensible to focus it on focusing more women who are actually likely to be receptive to one's overtures (which may mean the ones who aren't very physically attractive), as opposed to quixotically striving after a woman who gorgeous women who you know are out of your league?

[johndoe2]

After reading this thread, me thinks that a lot of people forget what attractiveness really is. Very sad. :(

And what, pray tell, is it?

 

As I understand it, it's the quality of attracting others. Physically speaking, this means attractiveness is the extent to which one is viewed as physically attractive by members of the opposite sex, and the proportion of members of the opposite sex that view one as physically attractive.

 

So there, a consensus-based definition, and one that is, at least in theory, quantifiable. Much like the economic value of something, it's determined by demand. And when we're shopping, we don't just get to pick the thing we like best and take it home; we have to pick the thing that we like best out of the things that we can actually afford. Maybe, if you're lucky, you naturally like best the thing that happens to be least expensive; but most people aren't like that, because after all, the reason why the most expensive things are so expensive is because so many people like them. So you self-select, and focus on looking for what you like most among the things you expect you can afford. So goes the analogy.

[elaine567]

We only have so much time in life and so much energy. Why is it not sensible to focus it on focusing more women who are actually likely to be receptive to one's overtures (which may mean the ones who aren't very physically attractive), as opposed to quixotically striving after a woman who gorgeous women who you know are out of your league?

 

Yes, but those who are happiest, accept where they are in life pretty early on, they accept Harvard is not for them, that going to university at all may be a stretch, but they make the most of what they have. The unhappiest are those who go about forever saying how unfair it is that they never went to Harvard, and they moan and groan about it and it has ruined their life.

 

It seems to me that some men have not accepted that Angelina Jolie lookalikes or those that look like porn queens or supermodels, are not going to fall at their feet.

I can hear the underlying bitterness in their voices about "settling" - about ugly women - about fat women - about older women - in fact about any woman graded less than a 9-10 on the attractiveness scale.

 

Until they accept that IRL women come in all shapes and sizes, and all grades of beauty, and women are not inherently "worthless" if not a 9-10, they are NEVER going to be happy.

[trippi1432]

And what, pray tell, is it?

 

As I understand it, it's the quality of attracting others. Physically speaking, this means attractiveness is the extent to which one is viewed as physically attractive by members of the opposite sex, and the proportion of members of the opposite sex that view one as physically attractive.

 

So there, a consensus-based definition, and one that is, at least in theory, quantifiable. Much like the economic value of something, it's determined by demand. And when we're shopping, we don't just get to pick the thing we like best and take it home; we have to pick the thing that we like best out of the things that we can actually afford. Maybe, if you're lucky, you naturally like best the thing that happens to be least expensive; but most people aren't like that, because after all, the reason why the most expensive things are so expensive is because so many people like them. So you self-select, and focus on looking for what you like most among the things you expect you can afford. So goes the analogy.

 

Well, since you put it to physical attractiveness, would my 38DD boobs make up for my 5ft frame? Or the fact that I have had two kids....but many men have told me that I have a gorgeous ass. I don't have the size 6 mid-section....pooh, that really sexy PUA on OKC just got jilted, he's good though...keep importing those Aisan girls. Marketing....they know how to pick up a brand and run with it.

 

Then again, why do I date down, educationally, financially, attractiveness-wise, my own father asked me this before. The men who make the money I do, never have enough. They are never happy and continue to push their agendas in spite of their own family's happiness. It doesn't matter how "sexy" they seem or how much money they make, they will always be insecure.

 

The other side of that coin are the women who make more money than their man...I was more unattractive to my husband than I had ever been when I scheduled my first hair appointment. (lol...let the stereotyping begin).

[Taramere]

I get the impression you're not altogether getting the point here, or mine at least (can't speak for the OP).

 

The point as I undertand it relates to certain men feeling that they don't stand a chance with beautiful women and must therefore settle for less attractive (or to use in the OP's style of discourse "ugly") women.

 

I'm responding to your post primarily because part of it was addressed to me - so it seems polite to respond. I responded to Enigma's post because it demonstrated an ability to "get" (as in understand) women. Do you see a difference in the reasons for responding there? Social duty versus genuine interest? Take that dynamic from a message board, put it in a real life social situation and you'll see much the same thing. Women gravitate towards men who "get" them....just as men will often gravitate towards women who they feel understood by.

 

In the context of my post and your response to it....you feel misunderstood. That's other people's fault for not understanding you. You then go on to make comments that no doubt express how you feel, but that don't really have much relevance to what I posted. Which is fine - we all do it at time. However I think you are probably somebody who is focused primarily on feeling misunderstood - more than you are focused on striving to understand other people. The same might be true of a lot of men who feel they must settle for less attractive women - then perhaps feel outraged when those less attractive women aren't interested. Regardless of how hot or not hot they are, people are mostly attracted to others who take a genuine interest in and understand them. To attract people to you, you need to be that person who is capable of taking an interest and understanding.

 

You have more chance with the hot woman whose personality you like, admire and relate to than you do with a less physically attractive woman whose values and outlook differ in a marked way from yours. If you're an artist, you automatically stand a better chance with the plain woman who has a passion for art than you do with the beautiful woman who thinks it's a waste of time. A lot of people out there really don't focus on looks as much as you might think they do (or as much as you do yourself). If somebody has passions in life, then the people who excel in those areas are the ones they admire and perhaps covet as partners.

 

People who focus primarily on looks often don't have any particular passions in life. They don't have much of a reference point for "what kind of person do I want to be with" beyond "good looking and doesn't piss me off too much." If they feel that they can't get good looking, then they'll settle for not good looking for the sake of being partnered up....but the very term "settling" denotes a lack of passion. Your assumption is that it will be easier to get the less attractive woman because she's not being mobbed by men in the way that the good looking one is. Well, it might be easier to strike up a conversation with her. If you're friendly and polite, and the woman is sitting on her own, she'll probably be glad of the opportunity to not be the spare part sitting alone. However, if you're only venturing over because she's low hanging fruit, that's probably not going to form the basis for chemistry and a future date. There's got to be something positive about that women which draws you to her. "She's not that pretty so it'll probably be easy to pick her up!" doesn't qualify as a positive.

 

If you can become somebody who is less concerned with feeling misunderstood by others, and more concerned with empathising with, appreciating and understanding other people...I promise you, you will start to see extraordinary qualities in quite ordinary looking people. Then when you do approach them it will be genuine and complimentary rather than an awkward and unpleasant "man approaching low hanging fruit" exchange. And you'll probably become more the sort of person that people of various grades of physical attractiveness find interesting/enjoyable to talk to.

Edited June 14, 2015 by Taramere

[elaine567]

People who focus primarily on looks often don't have any particular passions in life. They don't have much of a reference point for "what kind of person do I want to be with" beyond "good looking and doesn't piss me off too much." If they feel that they can't get good looking, then they'll settle for not good looking for the sake of being partnered up....but the very term "settling" denotes a lack of passion.

 

^^^^ this ^^^^

is a very good point.

[GoodOnPaper]

People who focus primarily on looks often don't have any particular passions in life. They don't have much of a reference point for "what kind of person do I want to be with" beyond "good looking and doesn't piss me off too much." If they feel that they can't get good looking, then they'll settle for not good looking for the sake of being partnered up....but the very term "settling" denotes a lack of passion. Your assumption is that it will be easier to get the less attractive woman because she's not being mobbed by men in the way that the good looking one is. Well, it might be easier to strike up a conversation with her. If you're friendly and polite, and the woman is sitting on her own, she'll probably be glad of the opportunity to not be the spare part sitting alone. However, if you're only venturing over because she's low hanging fruit, that's probably not going to form the basis for chemistry and a future date. There's got to be something positive about that women which draws you to her. "She's not that pretty so it'll probably be easy to pick her up!" doesn't qualify as a positive.

 

I don't know about the connection to lack of passion, but I like the low-hanging fruit analogy. Without that, I wouldn't have my marriage and family of 20+ years. I don't think anyone would "settle" with someone if they are completely unattracted to their partner. But after years on LS, I feel like I'm the only one that views attraction as a spectrum -- from everyone's posts on the subject, it seems that one is either completely attracted or completely unattracted. I don't see how it can work that way. I was conflicted to the extent that I didn't feel the type of honeymoon-infatuation in my relationship, and I definitely regret that, but my wife certainly has qualities that I was drawn to even from the beginning.

 

Struggling guys get bashed all the time on LS for wanting a physically attractive partner. What we're really saying is the following:

 

1. Emotionally, we want our partners to inspire us

2. Physically, we want satisfying sex lives

 

(I probably should have reversed the order . . . )

 

The usual arguments about looking beyond the surface, treating women as people, etc. don't get to these things, at least in a way a lot of guys will understand. Do we have a right to expect satisfying sex lives even if we're not the kind of guys women would choose for casual sex? Will that happen with women who are not the most attractive? Or do we just have to take what we can get -- even if it's vanilla and tame? Personally, I don't think "relationship attraction" necessarily translates into the same kind of physical attraction intensity that a woman might feel toward a casual sex partner, but maybe I'm overly cynical.

[JuneJulySeptember]

I don't know about the connection to lack of passion, but I like the low-hanging fruit analogy. Without that, I wouldn't have my marriage and family of 20+ years. I don't think anyone would "settle" with someone if they are completely unattracted to their partner. But after years on LS, I feel like I'm the only one that views attraction as a spectrum -- from everyone's posts on the subject, it seems that one is either completely attracted or completely unattracted. I don't see how it can work that way. I was conflicted to the extent that I didn't feel the type of honeymoon-infatuation in my relationship, and I definitely regret that, but my wife certainly has qualities that I was drawn to even from the beginning.

 

Nope. I'm another one just like you.

 

There's a lot of grey area here in terms of attraction for sure.

[Redhead14]

ive had enough of the dating scene. its just too brutal. too much competition for the best women. i simply do not have the tools to compete. trust me im over 30 ive been in there...cold approaching women, bars, clubs, parties, you name it. its all the same game. ive suffered a lot of rejection, so much i cant approach anymore. i see a girl i fancy i know im gonna get rejected. why bother?

all men are basically competing for the best looking women they can get/afford. we are like piranhas...throw some bloody meat in and its a frenzy. put a beautiful woman in a room full of men and the same will happen. put an average looking woman in a room full of men the same will happen. hell put anything with a vagina in that room, they dont care. if youre a beautiful woman, youre used to getting tons of attention. if youre not so good looking youll get slightly less attention.

 

what im getting at is its all a competition. my ideal girl is beautiful, polite, caring, intelligent, vibrant. i think she exists, but the problem is shes probably with someone who can say all the right stuff and with higher social status than me. i cant compete for her, so shes out of my league. even if i met her she wouldnt pay attention to me.

 

 

so i could settle for an unattractive but polite girl with a good attitude. it has an advantage...she gets little attention from men, she will actually pay attention to you. unattractive women also tend to be less self absorbed and arrogant. they havent been spoiled by all the attention.

 

Abbott and Costello did a comic routine that went something like this:

 

Costello: Hey, Abbott, I think I'm going to marry an ugly girl.

 

Abbott: Why is that?

 

Costello: Because a pretty girl might run away.

 

Abbott: That's silly, an ugly girl could run away too.

 

Costello: Yeah, but who cares?

 

She may be ugly on the outside, but beautiful on the inside. When you get to see that side of her, you'll see her that way on the outside.

 

There are tons of women who are beautiful, but ugly on the inside. That is part of the reason you see so many beautiful women who are single.

[Taramere]

Struggling guys get bashed all the time on LS for wanting a physically attractive partner. What we're really saying is the following:

 

1. Emotionally, we want our partners to inspire us

2. Physically, we want satisfying sex lives

 

(I probably should have reversed the order . . . )

 

The usual arguments about looking beyond the surface, treating women as people, etc. don't get to these things, at least in a way a lot of guys will understand. Do we have a right to expect satisfying sex lives even if we're not the kind of guys women would choose for casual sex?

 

I think it's like happiness. You have the right to pursue a satisfying sex life (with a consenting partner, obviously). Whether you actually get it is a matter of luck, effort and wise choices rather than a matter of human rights.

[Villainous]

The truth is that the majority of women are average/ugly without their makeup, even models and celebrities:

 

 

So it's probably better that you do settle, i.e. become more realistic.

[Emmie83]

Wow you're quite the charmer aren't you! I know i am confident and happy with myself, with or without makeup, which I hardly ever wear. Beauty is in the eye of the beholder and everyone has their different opinions on it.

 

 

The truth is that the majority of women are average/ugly without their makeup, even models and celebrities:

 

 

So it's probably better that you do settle, i.e. become more realistic.

[Leigh 87]

As you can see from my profile pictures, I'm no model or beauty queen.

 

However, I aim for men who feel dead lucky to have me.

 

Despite not being Megan Fox, I've honestly had men who thought I was gorgeous.

 

Just because I can't be in America's next top model that doesn't mean all the men I date feel like they have " settled " for an ugly chick

[Krieger]

The truth is that the majority of women are average/ugly without their makeup, even models and celebrities:

 

 

So it's probably better that you do settle, i.e. become more realistic.

 

Well Kim Kardashian looks like a hobbit with out Photoshop.

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_-fu6dlF25w

[Lernaean_Hydra]

Whenever someone says they're contemplating "settling" for an ugly partner I always want to beg them not to do this. People who "settle" (or view themselves as doing so) tend to make that fact quite well known, not just in word but in deed as well which also tends to make them very poor romantic prospects.

 

These types often enter into relatonships with an air of superiority mixed with malcontentment due to the general feeling that they should, by rights be with someone better than what they "settled" for and it shows in every aspect of their relationship; from their enthusiasm toward their partner to simply how much (or how little) they value them. They also have a tendency to think of their partners not in terms of what they are and offer, but all the things they aren't.

 

 

If you (general you) feel you can and in fact should be able to land a highly attractive partner then please, by all means, never stop pursuing those types of people. Don't saddle yourself (or someone else) with your hangups simply because you didn't want to be alone.

 

It should be noted though that for however many struggles attractive people may have with dating, most don't find themselves perpetually single simply because there's too much competition out there or people have just become so darn superficial (or materialistic, etc). The reality is, if in all your years you have not been able to attract a partner that meets your (perceived) level of attractiveness or the level of attractiveness you feel you deserve, chances are you probably aren't nearly as attractive as you think.

[elaine567]

Whenever someone says they're contemplating "settling" for an ugly partner I always want to beg them not to do this. People who "settle" (or view themselves as doing so) tend to make that fact quite well known, not just in word but in deed as well which also tends to make them very poor romantic prospects.

 

These types often enter into relatonships with an air of superiority mixed with malcontentment due to the general feeling that they should, by rights be with someone better than what they "settled" for and it shows in every aspect of their relationship; from their enthusiasm toward their partner to simply how much (or how little) they value them. They also have a tendency to think of their partners not in terms of what they are and offer, but all the things they aren't.

 

Yes, disgruntled "settlers" make very poor partners.

The hurt they cause to those who genuinely care for them, is distressing to witness and hell to experience first hand.