Would you rather be the attractive or unattractive one?

[JasonLevi]

Let's say you and the man/woman you're dating are incredibly compatible - attitudes, values, behaviors, etc. However, one of you is not entirely physically attracted to the other. It's not disgust etc, but just not feeling very physically attracted.

Would you want to be the one who is not found physically attractive by your boy/girlfriend, or would you rather be the one that doesn't find the other very physically attractive?

I ask because I've reached a point where I want a life partner and it's clear that either I or the other person will have to compromise when it comes to physical attraction (I'm a guy). I think I'd rather be the one who compromises on my partner's looks, but what are your views? Would love to hear from both men and women.

 

 

Note: I know there is a difference between someone being attractive and being attracted to them, but in my experience the two tend to go hand in hand.

Edited September 23, 2020 by JasonLevi

[Mystery4u]

This thread makes no sense.

Why would I, or anyone really, date someone I'm not attracted to? I wouldn't.

Why would anyone who is not attracted to me, date me? They wouldn't.

[stillafool]

I like most people would prefer to be the more attractive one.  

[ShyViolet]

3 hours ago, JasonLevi said:

I ask because I've reached a point where I want a life partner and it's clear that either I or the other person will have to compromise when it comes to physical attraction

I don't understand this.  Can you explain why you think that either you or the other person will have to compromise on physical attraction?

[CaliforniaGirl]

Oh no.... Neither, really.

[Trail Blazer]

I'd rather be the one punchin'

[Ruby Slippers]

Grandmas always said be prettier than the man you marry, cuz then he'll treat you better. Generally it's true. Not in all cases, but in general.

I've never cared that much about looks. I like strong, competent men, and they usually appear more attractive no matter what they look like on the surface.

[snowboy91]

Neither. I want to date someone I find attractive, and I sure hope I date someone who finds me attractive. 

I see what you're saying - I understand not everyone can get a partner who looks like a model, but keep in mind that some people become more attractive once you get to know them a little better - and what you find attractive can both broaden and shift over time.

[Ruby Slippers]

I will add it can be fun to be with a very good-looking guy. I never hunted for them but have attracted a few hot ass men who turned heads everywhere we went. I expect women will pursue it more with our rising earning power/freedom. 

[Trail Blazer]

2 hours ago, enigma32 said:

My GF is definitely hotter than I am. Call me shallow but it's not such a bad position to be in. She likes me because I am strong and capable. Definitely not because I have the body of an Adonis. 

I believe I'm in a similar boat.  It ain't such a bad thing! 

When you hear it through the grapevine that your work buddies have all been talking about how hot your girlfriend is, it hardly makes you feel bad. 

[ExpatInItaly]

Woman here. 

I'm partnered up, but I have never dated a guy that I'm not that physically attracted to. 

[Weezy1973]

11 hours ago, JasonLevi said:

I ask because I've reached a point where I want a life partner and it's clear that either I or the other person will have to compromise when it comes to physical attraction (I'm a guy). 

How exactly did this become clear? Considering most couples match up in terms of physical attractiveness, seems like an extraordinary position to be in.

[JasonLevi]

For those of us not in a fulfilling relationships with mutual attraction, I think this question is no trivial one. Isn’t most of dating just people trying to find someone who they find physically attractive and then, for some, determining if they’re compatible. Most messages posted on these forums can be split in two:

1.       Other person was not attracted:

• “Guy stopped messaging all of a sudden...”
• “I met someone I thought was the real deal, I'm now unsure if he's fading out”
• “First two dates went really well now she texts saying she doesnt want to see eachother again”
• “Is she shy?... when i tried to set a date, she claimed to be busy”
• “Need to vent, she said we could only be friends”

2.       This person is not attracted:

• “I really liked him except for this one superficial thing”
• “Dating apps with attractive guys?”

We can say it’s about compatibility, vibe, personality and I agree these are relevant factors, but, truthfully, during the early stages of a relationship – it’s usually about looks.

Isn’t dating always a case of a physical attraction mismatch? One person likes the other more? What if we accepted that for most of us a physical mismatch is likely? If so, then at some point, if we want to settle down, we’d have to decide whether we, or the other person, is going to compromise. (Note: a physical attraction mismatch does not mean a relationship mismatch – unless you believe physical attraction is an essential ingredient of a happy relationship).

 

 

 

 

[Weezy1973]

2 hours ago, JasonLevi said:

What if we accepted that for most of us a physical mismatch is likely?

I think you need to define this. Do you mean an actual mismatch in objective physical attractiveness? Or do you mean, like a case where the obese 35 year old man who is unemployed and plays video games all day can’t seem to find a 21 year swimsuit model that’s interested in dating him?

As I stated before, most long term couples match up in terms of physical attractiveness. So that’s kind of expected. 
 

If people are struggling because they’re only physically attracted to people that are more attractive then themselves, that’s a different problem. 

Edited September 24, 2020 by Weezy1973

[Wiseman2]

You are way too focused on subjective material.

Either you have chemistry with someone or you don't.

It sounds like you are simply not ready to date. If you were you wouldn't be pondering who has the upper hand based on some silly "Hot Or Not" criteria.

You would be able to view who you are with as sexy and beautiful to you and you would feel confident in your own attractiveness.

[Versacehottie]

3 hours ago, JasonLevi said:

For those of us not in a fulfilling relationships with mutual attraction, I think this question is no trivial one. Isn’t most of dating just people trying to find someone who they find physically attractive and then, for some, determining if they’re compatible. Most messages posted on these forums can be split in two:

1.       Other person was not attracted:

• “Guy stopped messaging all of a sudden...”
• “I met someone I thought was the real deal, I'm now unsure if he's fading out”
• “First two dates went really well now she texts saying she doesnt want to see eachother again”
• “Is she shy?... when i tried to set a date, she claimed to be busy”
• “Need to vent, she said we could only be friends”

2.       This person is not attracted:

• “I really liked him except for this one superficial thing”
• “Dating apps with attractive guys?”

We can say it’s about compatibility, vibe, personality and I agree these are relevant factors, but, truthfully, during the early stages of a relationship – it’s usually about looks.

Isn’t dating always a case of a physical attraction mismatch? One person likes the other more? What if we accepted that for most of us a physical mismatch is likely? If so, then at some point, if we want to settle down, we’d have to decide whether we, or the other person, is going to compromise. (Note: a physical attraction mismatch does not mean a relationship mismatch – unless you believe physical attraction is an essential ingredient of a happy relationship).

 

 

 

 

Good points about how the topics in this forum break down lol.  I don't think all of those subjects have to do with looks per se but they do have to do with overall attraction.

Regarding looks, "they" have done studies where they rank attractiveness on a scale of 1-10 (typical with 10 being the most attractive) and found that the most satisfied couples are quite similar on an attractiveness scale.  Such as 8 goes with 8, let's say.  They said in those studies that I think if it was more than 2 points off it wasn't a lasting or satisfying one really.  So basically you should try to be with someone about your level of attractiveness.  That said, as you can imagine, the one exception was a big "trade", pretty much being that very wealthy guys could get very gorgeous women in a "satisfying" match where the looks scale didn't match up.  Like he might be a troll at a 1 or 2 but rich and she might be a 10 and everyone's fine.

That said, I think in general women are typically better looking and take better care of themselves so they usually are the more attractive ones in the relationship whereas a guy brings the "something else".  I think a lot of the problem with relationships lasting with attractiveness continuing is that one or the other person lets themselves go. You hear it all the time that husbands will be upset that their wives have let themselves go or baby weight etc.---if you partner up primarily because of looks, will you be able to weather these times?  Probably not.  IMO, use looks as a basis for initial attraction (close to equal on the 1-10 scale) and then create a bond that is beyond looks.  The important thing is to find the right person and that is usually far different than what is on outside--though both play a role and are important.

I think for your situation, if you are looking at it being such a compromised thing, you probably have not encountered the right person IMO. Good luck

[schlumpy]

If I find five to ten percent of women attractive with the percentage being the same on their side towards me, that is more than enough.

Too many choices can be just as disconcerting as too few.

[Emilie Jolie]

Is this like a variation on the Monica & Chandler reacher/settler thing? (Friends reference, for the young'uns).

The best couples I know always both say how lucky they are to have found their partner; I think there's something in it - when both of you think you've hit the jackpot, whatever your criteria for it.

Past a certain age (or maybe level of maturity), I feel like 'looks' is not that much of a priority (caveat - I'm in my 40s and have never used OLD).

Not to say physical attraction doesn't matter (it does, a lot), but it's not necessarily related to how a person looks - a twinkle in the eye, a sexy smile, a self-assured walk, an engaging demeanour, etc would be more noticeable to me than a particular eye colour or built, for instance.

No matter how good looking a guy is, there won't be any physical attraction without a more meaningful connection, even at first glance.

[vla1120]

17 hours ago, JasonLevi said:

Let's say you and the man/woman you're dating are incredibly compatible - attitudes, values, behaviors, etc. However, one of you is not entirely physically attracted to the other. It's not disgust etc, but just not feeling very physically attracted.

Would you want to be the one who is not found physically attractive by your boy/girlfriend, or would you rather be the one that doesn't find the other very physically attractive?

I ask because I've reached a point where I want a life partner and it's clear that either I or the other person will have to compromise when it comes to physical attraction (I'm a guy). I think I'd rather be the one who compromises on my partner's looks, but what are your views? Would love to hear from both men and women.

 

 

Note: I know there is a difference between someone being attractive and being attracted to them, but in my experience the two tend to go hand in hand.

Number one: As soon as you agree (in your own mind) to compromise, the relationship is doomed to fail. If you're not attracted to someone, do not stay involved with them. Plus, attraction is not necessarily always physical. I'm more attracted to intelligence and personality traits than I am physical traits. Looks fade, but dumb, rude, self-centered, narcissistic, mean-hearted - those are usually forever.  Unless you are completely revolted by someone's appearance, take a little time to get to know them. Once you've taken a little time to get to know someone, if the attraction is still not there, do them and yourself a favor, let them go and keep looking.

[Bluesky00]

If I can’t picture having sex with a guy in the backseat of a car, thens he’s unattractive 

[smackie9]

What about Trini Lopez? He said "if you want to be happy for the rest of your life, never make a pretty women your wife. So my personal point of view, get an ugly girl to marry you".

[mark clemson]

I think if one or the other genuinely doesn't find you at least somewhat attractive, the relationship will be missing some sexual spark. Some people might be fine without that, others not so much.

In my marriage, I'm the more attractive one in the superficial sense of getting looks from strangers etc. However, I'm (perhaps) fortunate in that I can be attracted to a woman in a variety of ways (face, personality, body, intelligence, etc). So, I'm still attracted to my wife and it isn't an issue. I'm actually not all that attracted to many of the super-model types. Some, yes, but not all of them - some are a bit too skinny or appear stuck up, etc.

The benefits of dating a more attractive person are obvious. However, I think the trade-off is you might feel less emotionally secure during "rough patches" or what have you as it's presumably easier for them to go find someone else should they genuinely choose to.

3 hours ago, Versacehottie said:

I think a lot of the problem with relationships lasting with attractiveness continuing is that one or the other person lets themselves go. You hear it all the time that husbands will be upset that their wives have let themselves go or baby weight etc.---if you partner up primarily because of looks, will you be able to weather these times?  Probably not.  IMO, use looks as a basis for initial attraction (close to equal on the 1-10 scale) and then create a bond that is beyond looks.  The important thing is to find the right person and that is usually far different than what is on outside--though both play a role and are important.

I think this is a GREAT point when thinking for the longer term. You or the other person might change or grow apart, but you might as well START from a good point and hopefully improve your odds.

[Azincourt]

19 hours ago, JasonLevi said:

Let's say you and the man/woman you're dating are incredibly compatible - attitudes, values, behaviors, etc. However, one of you is not entirely physically attracted to the other. It's not disgust etc, but just not feeling very physically attracted.

Why would I date someone I'm not very physically attracted to? Wouldn't it be a waste of my time? It would also be a waste of her own time. Instead of being with someone who isn't 100% attracted to her, she could easily be out there meeting men who think she's a 21 year old Alizée instead of being with a man who enjoys having sex with her, but isn't hella crazy about her.

Quote

Would you want to be the one who is not found physically attractive by your boy/girlfriend, or would you rather be the one that doesn't find the other very physically attractive?

I'd rather be the one who is very physically attractive, lol. People who are hot are treated better by their partners, especially if there aren't that many hot people around, and the chances she has of finding a hot boyfriend are already slim, which means that I'm going to be a very pampered boyfriend.

Quote

I ask because I've reached a point where I want a life partner and it's clear that either I or the other person will have to compromise when it comes to physical attraction (I'm a guy). I think I'd rather be the one who compromises on my partner's looks, but what are your views? Would love to hear from both men and women.

I'm not picky when it comes to casual sex. One night stands, as long as she wants to sleep with me, I'm pretty much down to sleep with almost any woman or any man, but if we're talking about romantic relationships - I'm going to be very picky.

I don't compromise when it comes to physical attraction. I don't care if she's 22 and still lives at home with her parents. I don't care if she's a 30 year old waitress. What I care is how physically attractive she is and how physically attracted she is to me.

Quote

 

Note: I know there is a difference between someone being attractive and being attracted to them, but in my experience the two tend to go hand in hand.

 if you were to move to Saint- Tropez you'd soon learn that physical attraction and beauty is relative to what you personally like.

Most people here are hot. When you first get here,  you'll be in awe at how hot everyone is, just like it happened to me when I first moved to Europe.  My European friends would take me to family-oriented beaches and no lie, I'd end up having gorgeous half-naked women walking in front of me, so close that I'd end with water spray on my face from their bodies, and although my jaw had to be picked from the sand because of how hot these women were: it didn't take long for me to grow used to being around all of these beautiful people.

Eventually you grow accostumed to physically attractive people and there will be other factors that will make someone who is hot, become hot and hotter in your eyes. In my case, pretty much every woman who looks like Kirsten Dunst circa 2003.

 

Edited September 24, 2020 by Azincourt

[notbroken]

If either of you thinks they are significantly 'hotter' than the other, there will likely be problems long term.   When the 'long relationship doldrums' settle in the 'hotter' one will think they settled and can do better.  Doesn't have to be - but it is a pretty good predictor of failure over time.   Don't settle.  Neither of you should. 

[Lotsgoingon]

This is a difficult question because ... well attraction isn't just in looks. It's also energy, voice, humor, the way a person walks, the way they tell a story, the way they smile and think, their eyes and on and on.

Let's say you think you're better looking than Woman X.  And let's say a unbiased panel of raters agree with you. Well, here's the problem. Woman X might have charisma and fun energy that dwarfs any charisma and energy you have.  Because of the way you might feel with Woman X (assuming you're drawn to her charisma) she'll likely become prettier in your eyes.

Now here's the kicker. Let's create a panel of raters who know both you and Woman X. This panel--unlike the previous panel--knows about Woman X's energy and charisma. They might easily  conclude that Woman X is overall more attractive, more of a "catch" than you are.

The bottom line is that you want to find someone you are thrilled to be with who is also thrilled to be with you. That's it!  If you feel like you're compromising, move on.