# Beauty vs Intelligence



## happybut...

A question for the men.

Which attribute would you prioritize / be mostly attracted to in a prospective partner.

- A nice looking woman who is seriously (meaning uber/mega) intelligent and witty

or

- A smoking hot looking woman with average intelligence and wit?


----------



## ConanHub

Every other aspect being equal, I would choose higher intelligence.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## Thor

A woman has to meet the minimum threshold of attractiveness in order to be considered as relationship material. Above that it is a bonus but not necessary.

So, if she is a "Nice looking woman" she at least meets the minimum to be attractive to me. So then it is an amalgam of all her attributes which would make me more or less interested in her.

Matching intelligence and interests would be much better in a long term relationship than her being smoking hot but we're not able to have any good conversations. But I don't want a woman who is way smarter than me and who likes to flaunt it. It is all about balance and compatibility.


----------



## ocotillo

happybut... said:


> - a nice looking woman who is seriously (meaning uber/mega) intelligent and witty


this...


----------



## southbound

happybut... said:


> A question for the men.
> 
> Which attribute would you prioritize / be mostly attracted to in a prospective partner.
> 
> - A nice looking woman who is seriously (meaning uber/mega) intelligent and witty
> 
> or
> 
> - A smoking hot looking woman with average intelligence and wit?


It has to do with overall compatibility. I couldn't pick one over the other on paper.

This "intelligence" thing, however, has come up a lot on this forum, and I have even done a thread once on it. You mention "average intelligence." Would I be satisfied with that? Sure i would.

I've often said that i don't particularly know what people mean when they speak of intelligence being attractive. Would i want a woman that makes me feel like I have a child that i need to take care of? No. On the other hand, do i require one that is a professor? No.

As I've written before, I have a masters degree and work in a white collar career, but this "intelligence' stuff usually bores me. 
I'd rather just have a country girl who likes to watch movies and hang out at home with the family.


----------



## Thundarr

Nice looking and intelligent are both important.

So for me the total package is pretty, intelligent, good hearted, and, down to earth. The sum of those qualities is perfect and doesn't require super model hotness or Einstein intelligence. From what I hear, being too hot or too smart is intimidating to a lot of men which is screwed up. I could speculate the reasons why.


----------



## happybut...

southbound said:


> It has to do with overall compatibility. I couldn't pick one over the other on paper.
> 
> This "intelligence" thing, however, has come up a lot on this forum, and I have even done a thread once on it. You mention "average intelligence." Would I be satisfied with that? Sure i would.
> 
> I've often said that i don't particularly know what people mean when they speak of intelligence being attractive. Would i want a woman that makes me feel like I have a child that i need to take care of? No. On the other hand, do i require one that is a professor? No.
> 
> As I've written before, I have a masters degree and work in a white collar career, but this "intelligence' stuff usually bores me.
> I'd rather just have a country girl who likes to watch movies and hang out at home with the family.


Okay so let's qualify 'intelligence' then. Say a woman/person who processes information quickly and is able to form a valid and original point of view with the information she's been given. As for wit - imagine a woman who readily sees the irony in scenarios and articulates them into fun quips or one who has a spanking self depricating sense of humor. A girl/guy who likes to stay home and watch movies has a personality one way or another - my question is - would this sort of personality resonate? Or would it be better to have one who blows you away with good looks and a smoking body? Which style country girl would you want by your side on the couch?


----------



## john117

Intelligence hands down but there seems to be a minimum score for beauty as well.

Unfortunately for both genders, beauty * brain is a constant so...


----------



## john117

southbound said:


> As I've written before, I have a masters degree and work in a white collar career, but this "intelligence' stuff usually bores me.
> 
> I'd rather just have a country girl who likes to watch movies and hang out at home with the family.



This++.

After 32 years with a very attractive math PhD I would rather marry the proverbial country girl.


----------



## Lone Shadow

I worked opposite shifts with this girl about 10 years ago. It's the middle of January, and we had just finished putting together February's schedule. 

Shift change.

"Melissa, we put together February's work schedule. Take a look."

"What happened to the 29th, 30th, and 31st?"

"Melissa, it's February..."

"Yeah I know. Where's the rest of the schedule?"

.....
Thing of it is, she actually DID mean it. She WAS serious.
Gorgeous, funny, but no. Just no.


----------



## happybut...

Haha, love these responses. Bad Santa - you always make me laugh. Anyways, as I said in a post a few above, I agree, intelligence can be packaged in many forms, but fundamentally speaking, my interpretation of a sound and proficient mind, is one that quickly processes data and then articulates it with an original and valid point of view. Doesn't matter if you are talking academically or day to day life.


----------



## jld

john117 said:


> This++.
> 
> After 32 years with a very attractive math PhD I would rather marry the proverbial country girl.


Eventually people figure out they want to feel good with their partner, not just look at them or debate them. Feeling good is the most important thing, imo.


----------



## happybut...

Lone Shadow said:


> I worked opposite shifts with this girl about 10 years ago. It's the middle of January, and we had just finished putting together February's schedule.
> 
> Shift change.
> 
> "Melissa, we put together February's work schedule. Take a look."
> 
> "What happened to the 29th, 30th, and 31st?"
> 
> "Melissa, it's February..."
> 
> "Yeah I know. Where's the rest of the schedule?"
> 
> .....
> Thing of it is, she actually DID mean it. She WAS serious.
> Gorgeous, funny, but no. Just no.


That would have amused me no end.


----------



## Jung_admirer

Neither beauty nor brains as these are gifts. I am more interested in what a potential partner does with the gifts they have been given. there simply is no substitute for effort and passion, the active invocation of our gifts.


----------



## ConanHub

Guys.... Consider everything else to be equal and choose. Higher intelligence or hotter looks?
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## jld

I think passion has to be inspired.


----------



## happybut...

Jung_admirer said:


> Neither beauty nor brains as these are gifts. I am more interested in what a potential partner does with the gifts they have been given. there simply is no substitute for effort and passion, the active invocation of our gifts.


I'd have to agree. My question was superficial in many regards, and many potential and beautiful partners might not fit either categories. At the end of the day, authenticity is paramount. But I am trying to glean information about two popularized qualities that people look for in mates. We all know that a relationship needs more substance than either of what I've suggested to be three dimensional and long lasting. I loved your reply, thank you.


----------



## Hopeful Cynic

As the questions stands? Intelligence hands down, but with the intelligence to make the most of her natural endowments. A smart girl can dress well and stay fit, but a hot one can't learn brains. Also, long term, beauty fades but intelligence remains.

As I've learned the hard way though, I value things like kindness and honesty over both intelligence or looks.


----------



## john117

jld said:


> Eventually people figure out they want to feel good with their partner, not just look at them or debate them. Feeling good is the most important thing, imo.



It's a chicken and egg. To feel good you need the intellectual discourse and vice versa.


----------



## jld

john117 said:


> It's a chicken and egg. To feel good you need the intellectual discourse and vice versa.


I know intelligence is important. It is a big turn on. 

But if I did not feel good with a man, his intelligence would feel empty to me. I need emotional connection as well as interesting conversation.


----------



## southbound

happybut... said:


> Okay so let's qualify 'intelligence' then. Say a woman/person who processes information quickly and is able to form a valid and original point of view with the information she's been given. As for wit - imagine a woman who readily sees the irony in scenarios and articulates them into fun quips or one who has a spanking self depricating sense of humor. A girl/guy who likes to stay home and watch movies has a personality one way or another - my question is - would this sort of personality resonate? Or would it be better to have one who blows you away with good looks and a smoking body? Which style country girl would you want by your side on the couch?


Maybe I misinterpret what people mean by intelligent. I view wit and sense of humor as more of a personality trait than something I would describe as intelligence. I realize that having wit and a sense of humor does require more intelligence than some realize, one doesn't have to be fluent in world events and able to build a rocket ship to posses it




Lone Shadow said:


> I worked opposite shifts with this girl about 10 years ago. It's the middle of January, and we had just finished putting together February's schedule.
> 
> Shift change.
> 
> "Melissa, we put together February's work schedule. Take a look."
> 
> "What happened to the 29th, 30th, and 31st?"
> 
> "Melissa, it's February..."
> 
> "Yeah I know. Where's the rest of the schedule?"
> 
> .....
> Thing of it is, she actually DID mean it. She WAS serious.
> Gorgeous, funny, but no. Just no.


I don't know this particular person, but sometimes people's minds just temporarily are "not in gear." I don't get all torn up over stuff like this. What was this person like otherwise? Did you have to hold her hand in all work projects, or was this just a slip?

I notice in current times that people are always quick to jump on something like this to verify that someone is not holding a full deck, but I find that not to be the case.

That actually sounds like something that my assistant at work would say, but on the other hand, I trust her to run the ship just as well as i could if i have to be absent. I have full confidence in all decisions she would make, even though she might temporarily forget the number of days in February. I actually find things like that rather cute.

I grew up a regular guy myself. I think sometimes that my college career and current job causes me to appreciate and enjoy the "average" person. It's actually a breath of fresh air to have someone ask if I watch "The Flash" and if I've tried a new burger at Dairy Queen as opposed to someone wanting to discuss politics and 401ks.


----------



## thenub

Beauty and intelligence are nice but honesty and integrity with a good helping of common sense is what I prefer. 
A really hot woman that possess a high level of intellect would be nice but I think I would be worrying constantly about other men hitting on her all the time. 
My wife has the right combination of pretty girl next door looks, intelligence, honesty and integrity. I wouldn't trade her for any woman in the world. Sometimes she does lack a little common sense but more than makes up for it with her sharp wit.
I started dating my wife when she was 16, she's now in her mid 40's and as far as I'm concerned she's just as beautiful to me now as she was then. To me looks are superficial, if you truly love someone that is all the beauty you need.


----------



## norajane

happybut... said:


> I'd have to agree. My question was superficial in many regards, and many potential and beautiful partners might not fit either categories. At the end of the day, authenticity is paramount. *But I am trying to glean information about two popularized qualities that people look for in mates.* We all know that a relationship needs more substance than either of what I've suggested to be three dimensional and long lasting. I loved your reply, thank you.





> Okay, I am going to flip my original post/question on it's ear.
> Let's boil it down to this. Which would make you feel more proud? To take a seriously gorgeous, good looking woman to dinner with your friends or to a business meeting and dazzle them with her beauty (and she is perfectly intelligent, interesting woman), OR, take a nice looking woman out to the same event, but she is someone supremely intelligent who would blow your friends/business colleauges away with incredible wit, knowledge and charm? Who would make you feel more 'proud'?


Are you choosing between two women you are dating?

It shouldn't matter who is impressed or not by the person you are dating. I would seriously question a person who picks a partner based on impressing other people.


----------



## vms

happybut... said:


> I'd have to agree. My question was superficial in many regards, and many potential and beautiful partners might not fit either categories. At the end of the day, authenticity is paramount. But I am trying to glean information about two popularized qualities that people look for in mates. We all know that a relationship needs more substance than either of what I've suggested to be three dimensional and long lasting. I loved your reply, thank you.


It doesn't matter. We are who we are. There is only so much "smarter" a person can get; I think intelligence is determined at birth. Learning, now that's determined by the individual. A person can know more things, but is that the same as being more intelligent? I think things like wit are either there or they're not. I don't think a person who isn't witty can force themselves to be. 

Beauty is in the eye of the beholder, as we all know. If a man wants what you have, the that's all that matters. You could sample every man here and get a different answer on what is "beautiful" from each one. What answers will that get you? You will be what SOMEONE wants, you will not be what everyone ELSE wants, nor should you be. 

Being worried about being unintelligent and/or unattractive will make you those things. It's CONFIDENCE that says, "I am smart and beautiful and no one can convince me otherwise." 

It's all in how you see yourself. Guys, that goes for you too.


----------



## ocotillo

jld said:


> Eventually people figure out they want to feel good with their partner, not just look at them or debate them. Feeling good is the most important thing, imo.


--Big, big difference between a stimulating conversation with someone who can articulate a perspective different than our own and do it well vs. formal debate.


----------



## Dogbert

I pick brains. 

Dumb girls are usually heartbreakers.


----------



## happybut...

norajane said:


> Are you choosing between two women you are dating?
> 
> It shouldn't matter who is impressed or not by the person you are dating. I would seriously question a person who picks a partner based on impressing other people.


Nope. I am a woman and I am not choosing between anyone. It's just that classic question of brawn vs brains. This seems like an interactive forum and thought I'd throw the question out there. I admit it's incredibly superficial, BUT, I do notice on dating websites and talking to singles (now that I am single after 10 years of marriage) that there is an emphasis on looks. 

I have two dating profiles. One has a small crappy picture and lots of text. Don't get much response. I opened another page and put up a few good pictures and barely ANY text. Guess which one got the most responses by a landslide? 

I think initially, these sorts of 'general' categories are what attract prospective partners to probe. The rest follows.


----------



## Dogbert

happybut... said:


> I have two dating profiles. One has a small crappy picture and lots of text. Don't get much response. I opened another page and put up a few good pictures and barely ANY text. Guess which one got the most responses by a landslide?


Their tongues hanging out and their tails wagging like crazy. Bet they can't wait to sniff you, right?


----------



## norajane

happybut... said:


> Nope. I am a woman and I am not choosing between anyone. *It's just that classic question of brawn vs brains. *This seems like an interactive forum and thought I'd throw the question out there. I admit it's incredibly superficial, BUT, I do notice on dating websites and talking to singles (now that I am single after 10 years of marriage) that there is an emphasis on looks.
> 
> I have two dating profiles. One has a small crappy picture and lots of text. Don't get much response. I opened another page and put up a few good pictures and barely ANY text. Guess which one got the most responses by a landslide?


There's no definitive answer to that question either. It just depends on who is doing the choosing.

Online dating appeals to certain people, but not all. I would never do it, personally, because I am unable to tell from a picture if I'd want to date someone. Sometimes the profile helps, but it's all flat to me. I need to meet someone in person for _anything _to click, and that's based on the personality of the person and whether they click with me.

Some people who date online are looking for hook ups, etc. Looks would be key for that kind of person.


----------



## john117

There has to be some baseline of physical attraction or "beauty". I'm going thru this right now as an intellectual exercise, having met a very interesting person who meets all my requirements but looks .

Being my typical paranoid self I figured that some women look bad by choice to avoid attraction, or by choice due to skeletal remains in their closets, or due to health reasons. In this day and age it's not that difficult to lose 20-30 lb if you're seriously overweight and want to work on it. 

Now, admittedly it depends on whom you're going to prepare for...so for an evening of Cards Against Humanity I kind of doubt one would be decked out but it shows one's mindset. And that could be a big green or a big red flag.


----------



## vms

Online dating is like fishing for the few trout in a pool full of carp. You're going to catch a lot that you'll want to throw back before you get one you want.


----------



## Homemaker_Numero_Uno

happybut... said:


> A question for the men.
> 
> Which attribute would you prioritize / be mostly attracted to in a prospective partner.
> 
> - A nice looking woman who is seriously (meaning uber/mega) intelligent and witty
> 
> or
> 
> - A smoking hot looking woman with average intelligence and wit?


A man who chooses a woman based on either attribute is neither intelligent or beautiful. He should choose with his heart. Therefore, beautiful and/or intelligent women should avoid this type, lest they become ugly from unhappiness and deem themselves stupid for accepting 'his choice'.


----------



## ThePheonix

Whether you put emphasis on looks, intelligence or both, what you're really, really looking for is one you find attractive and is either smart enough or dumb enough to think you hung the moon. Pick one that puts you first and don't worry how much you impress others with a high maintenance arm-piece. Relationships with the right Women is like getting the right equipment. Get one you can work with, not one you have to constantly work on.


----------



## Dogbert

Brainy can always look better, but pretty is SOL.


----------



## Thundarr

The good new happybut is that perfection is required from men or women. It's more about the positives outweighing the negatives and effort goes a long long way.

That being said, self proclaimed b!tches and jerks can suck it. If they're proud of the label then no need to knock on my door.


----------



## Deejo

norajane said:


> There's no definitive answer to that question either. It just depends on who is doing the choosing.
> 
> Online dating appeals to certain people, but not all. I would never do it, personally, because I am unable to tell from a picture if I'd want to date someone. Sometimes the profile helps, but it's all flat to me. I need to meet someone in person for _anything _to click, and that's based on the personality of the person and whether they click with me.
> 
> Some people who date online are looking for hook ups, etc. Looks would be key for that kind of person.


Not to pick on you NJ, but I just never understand this perspective, and it pops up all of the time.

The point of looking at an online profile is to decide if they are someone you do want to meet and interact with to learn if you're compatible ... just like meeting someone in real life.

To answer the question, and presuming the person is the epitome of beautiful to me, and they are of average intelligence ... I'm going to take looks every time.

But, attraction is often circumstantial. If you won my heart with wit and intellect, you have still won my heart nonetheless. 

Bottom line, I need to be attracted to my partner. One way or the other.


----------



## Methuselah

Looks change and fade with time. Intelligence is forever (assuming no dementia, etc.)


----------



## Wolf1974

I would take average intelligence and attractive. I'm average as well so a better match that way


----------



## norajane

Deejo said:


> Not to pick on you NJ, but I just never understand this perspective, and it pops up all of the time.
> 
> The point of looking at an online profile is to decide if they are someone you do want to meet and interact with to learn if you're compatible ... just like meeting someone in real life.


I don't really know how to explain it. It's something like watching food on television. No matter how tasty it looks, it's not compelling unless I can smell it and taste it. I can't get a feel for a person just through profiles, I guess. So I'm not motivated to meet them.


----------



## happybut...

Deejo said:


> Not to pick on you NJ, but I just never understand this perspective, and it pops up all of the time.
> 
> The point of looking at an online profile is to decide if they are someone you do want to meet and interact with to learn if you're compatible ... just like meeting someone in real life.
> 
> To answer the question, and presuming the person is the epitome of beautiful to me, and they are of average intelligence ... I'm going to take looks every time.
> 
> But, attraction is often circumstantial. If you won my heart with wit and intellect, you have still won my heart nonetheless.
> 
> Bottom line, I need to be attracted to my partner. One way or the other.


Okay, so you choose good looks.

So let's say a time comes when there are 3 beautiful prospective woman in your life. All equally physically desirable to you. 

What personality trait would make you gravitate to one more than the other?


----------



## snerg

happybut... said:


> A question for the men.
> 
> Which attribute would you prioritize / be mostly attracted to in a prospective partner.
> 
> - A nice looking woman who is seriously (meaning uber/mega) intelligent and witty
> 
> or
> 
> - A smoking hot looking woman with average intelligence and wit?


I have a question - Which one makes me happy?

That would be the one I choose.


----------



## Deejo

happybut... said:


> Okay, so you choose good looks.
> 
> So let's say a time comes when there are 3 beautiful prospective woman in your life. All equally physically desirable to you.
> 
> What personality trait would make you gravitate to one more than the other?


I am unable to resist an appreciation for non-sequitor comments, wit, sensibility, appreciation for whiskey, enthusiasm for whatever the endeavor, be it bungee jumping sex, or a trip to the hardware store. A ready smile goes a very, very, long way with me.

If you can laugh at the Big Lebowski and appreciate symphony, or a stroll through the Museum of Fine Arts, odds are, you're for me.

I want the whole package.

And I want the package wrapped in shiny, shapely paper with a bow on it.

I don't think I'm asking for much?


----------



## Deejo

Oh ... and the one who isn't afraid to be emotionally vulnerable.

Because she trusts me.


----------



## naiveonedave

happybut... said:


> I have two dating profiles. One has a small crappy picture and lots of text. Don't get much response. I opened another page and put up a few good pictures and barely ANY text. Guess which one got the most responses by a landslide?
> 
> .


My guess is the less pictures and too many words scares guys off, like you talk too much and are not attractive.


----------



## Deejo

happybut... said:


> I have two dating profiles. One has a small crappy picture and lots of text. Don't get much response. I opened another page and put up a few good pictures and barely ANY text. Guess which one got the most responses by a landslide?
> 
> I think initially, these sorts of 'general' categories are what attract prospective partners to probe. The rest follows.


An easy conversation to strike up on a first date from online dating is of course, online dating.

You could be a 10, and have the best written profile in the world, if you don't have a photo, you're off my list. If you don't have a full body photo ... you're off my list. If your profile photo is you wearing sunglasses, or you hugging one of those God forsaken little purse dogs ... you're off my list.

Everybody is superficial. 

We just get to choose the boundaries of our own superficiality.

I just call it preferential bias.

If you value smarts over looks, that is your preference bias.

If you want someone that is into Dr. Who, (Heartsbeating) ... preferential bias.

Now, I have a friend who actually creates what I call reverse rejection bias.

In other words, he sets the bar so high for his perfect woman, that by default he remains single. Never dates ... ever. In this case, this is actually a self-protection mechanism masking his own misgivings about his desirability as a partner.

Funny critters, people.


----------



## richardsharpe

Good evening all
I want someone who is fun and interesting to talk to. That is far more important to me than appearance.

To me "intelligence" covers a whole set of attributes: creativity, knowledge, wit, mathematical ability etc. There are people with high IQs who are very boring to talk to, but I find that on average, people considered "intelligent" ARE more interesting to talk with. (to me).

My wife is very intelligent and educated. So if we are on vacation looking at ancient ruins, we can not only appreciate they for their beauty, but know enough to compare with other contemporary cultures. Muse on a hypothetical war between Rome and the Han. Try to figure out why the Maya had roads but didn't use the wheel. Think about whether the uncanny similarities between far-east and new world pottery represent some innate human concept of aesthetics or if there was pre-Columbian contact. (neither of us are archaeologists - this is all just fun speculation).


----------



## richardsharpe

Good evening badsanta
I think even Google is realizing that this sort of trick question is not a good measure of real intelligence. Once you learn a few, the rest are easy. Also there are not books of puzzles so many applicants may have seen the exact puzzle that they are using.




badsanta said:


> There are also different kinds of intelligence:
> 
> Interview question to work at Google: Using only a four-minute hourglass and seven-minute hourglass, measure exactly nine minutes.
> 
> Interview question for a girl I might date (if I were dating): Why would an advanced 500 level art professor require students to diligently fail on at least two projects in order to get an "A" in the class?
> 
> One answer requires analytical and objective intelligence which can be boring and nerdy, while the other answer uses creative and subjective intelligence which is what I find fascinating.


----------



## Marduk

I guess I don't understand the question. Given that intelligence and smokin' hotness are kinda genetic traits (yes, intelligence must be supported with education and hotness must be supported with fitness and attention to detail), for the most part they're a bit hardcoded at birth.

A woman must be physically hot enough that I'm attracted to them enough to want to persue her, and smart enough that I want to keep her once I've caught her.

After that it's all the finer details that make things work, or not work at all.

Like Deejo, + points for tolerating my bad sci fi habit, being a demon in the sack, etc. But the hotness and intelligence stuff are kinda filters -- we typically hook up with people in our own categories. 

It's unusual (but has happened) that a super mega hot 9+ woman will hook up with a geeky 5ish guy, physically speaking.

Just like it's unusual that a super mega smart 9+ woman will marry an uneducated guy that can't tie his own shoelaces.

All other things being equal, of course -- there are plenty of occasions where a super hot woman will hook up with an unattractive but super rich smart powerful dude, or a super smart woman will marry a bumbling guy so she can rule the roost. Or vice versa, gender-wise. But everyone gets something out of the deal, otherwise there wouldn't be a deal to begin with.

But, typically I think that if you want to know how hot, successful, smart, passionate, wise, and awesome you are -- look at the kind of people you've been in LTRs with.


----------



## Thor

ConanHub said:


> Guys.... Consider everything else to be equal and choose. Higher intelligence or hotter looks?
> _Posted via Mobile Device_


As with looks, intelligence has to also meet a minimum standard. (As do other factors which you've not specified).

For me, the looks threshold is lower on the 1-10 scale than the intelligence threshold on a 1-10 scale.

Once a woman meets those thresholds, I'd go for the hotter looking woman.


----------



## Lionelhutz

happybut... said:


> A question for the men.
> 
> Which attribute would you prioritize / be mostly attracted to in a prospective partner.
> 
> - A nice looking woman who is seriously (meaning uber/mega) intelligent and witty
> 
> or
> 
> - A smoking hot looking woman with average intelligence and wit?


Since you tossed "wit" into the mix I will go with intellgence although the two don't always go together. Intelligence alone can also mean critical or "complicated". 

If I find a woman to be geniunely funny and intellgent I can find her intensely attractive even if her looks are only so so or less.

Luckily real life rarely has such stark choices


----------



## Mr. Nail

Well this question was posed by a woman in the mens club house and it shocks me a bit that no one has given the answer that this question deserves and has earned.

I choose the one with the biggest breasts.

MN


----------



## Thor

happybut... said:


> I am a woman
> .
> .
> I have two dating profiles. One has a small crappy picture and lots of text. Don't get much response. I opened another page and put up a few good pictures and barely ANY text. Guess which one got the most responses by a landslide?


Men make their very first decision based on looks. Does she meet the minimum threshold for me? Then after that all the other aspects are relevant.

Women make their very first decision based on other than hot looks.


----------



## unbelievable

happybut... said:


> A question for the men.
> 
> Which attribute would you prioritize / be mostly attracted to in a prospective partner.
> 
> - A nice looking woman who is seriously (meaning uber/mega) intelligent and witty
> 
> or
> 
> - A smoking hot looking woman with average intelligence and wit?


I've never been with a woman who didn't know everything. Guess I'd have to go with the really attractive one.


----------



## Wolf1974

unbelievable said:


> I've never been with a woman who didn't know everything. Guess I'd have to go with the really attractive one.


:rofl:


----------



## Shoshannah

Then there is the question of whether or not she is kind, thoughtful, a good listener, creative, etc. It would be difficult to leave those things out of the equation when choosing a spouse of either sex, don't you think?


----------



## John Lee

I'm a nerd and a know-it-all so I would have a hard time with a woman who I felt couldn't "keep up" as it were, a woman I couldn't have a good conversation about the news or an arty movie with, a woman who didn't know what I was talking about half the time. Practical intelligence is important to me too though. I like my wife's cutting wit, her ability to see through bull**** very quickly. I value that kind of intelligence more than brilliance in an academic field or something, it's more about being able to have a good conversation and have someone who can think through decisions with you. A teammate, a partner. My wife is of course very pretty, but I don't think I have an especially high looks threshhold -- I've often fallen for women who other people consider a little bit plain, the kind of woman who maybe has a naturally nice face but doesn't wear much make up or do much to her hair. 

Body does matter though, I'm still a grunting ape-man somewhere underneath all the headiness.


----------



## Runs like Dog

Kindness is the greatest beauty.


----------



## Anon1111

I smell so much BS in this thread.

The answer is obviously looks.

Most men would be giving up fingers to be with a 9+ if she was actually a possibility.

Men convince themselves that they care about other things more because that 9+ is just not available to them.

If we're talking in the normal distribution of attractiveness, sure other things might take on more importance. If you're debating between a 6 and a 6.25, then you might reasonably pick the smarter 6.

But I call BS on any man really choosing a dowdy woman over a smoking hot woman if he has the option.


----------



## Thundarr

Anon1111 said:


> I smell so much BS in this thread.
> 
> The answer is obviously looks.
> 
> Most men would be giving up fingers to be with a 9+ if she was actually a possibility.
> 
> Men convince themselves that they care about other things more because that 9+ is just not available to them.
> 
> If we're talking in the normal distribution of attractiveness, sure other things might take on more importance. If you're debating between a 6 and a 6.25, then you might reasonably pick the smarter 6.
> 
> But I call BS on any man really choosing a dowdy woman over a smoking hot woman if he has the option.


I think your judgement based on extremes Anon. Sure, lack of attraction may be a no-go but an actual dislike of a person's attitude or personality is equally a no-go. The reason I use 'attraction' rather than 'beauty' is that we all have our types. I remember my twin brother being head of heals for a few girls that I had no attraction to what so ever.


----------



## ocotillo

Anon1111 said:


> I smell so much BS in this thread.
> 
> The answer is obviously looks.



What if the 9+ took a nail file to the hood of a show quality 1967 Chevelle trying to find the die-cast emblems that you purposely removed before you had it painted?


----------



## Marduk

ocotillo said:


> What if the 9+ took a nail file to the hood of a show quality 1967 Chevelle trying to find the die-cast emblems that you purposely removed before you had it painted?


When I was in high school, I had the "Miss Teen [city I live in]" winner that I was dating throw a cinderblock through the windshield of the car I was driving.

It was still worth it. She was that hot.

Of course, that was easy to say, it was my buddy's car.


----------



## Thor

Anon1111 said:


> But I call BS on any man really choosing a dowdy woman over a smoking hot woman if he has the option.


A "dowdy" woman would not meet my minimum threshold of hotness.

A 9+ certainly would, and if I were interested only in a short term physical relationship she would certainly seem like a better choice than the certified genius who only rates a 7 on the hotness scale.


----------



## Marduk

Lila said:


> I had an argument with my husband last night about this topic. Assuming all else equal, he insisted that intelligence/wit would beat out beauty. That is until I proposed it like this...
> 
> Penny or Amy Farrah Fowler???


Are you suggesting that women are any different?


----------



## Thundarr

Lila said:


> I had an argument with my husband last night about this topic. Assuming all else equal, he insisted that intelligence/wit would beat out beauty. That is until I proposed it like this...
> 
> Penny or Amy Farrah Fowler???


haha. Yes but Amy Farrah Fowler crosses over to 'socially awkward smart'.


----------



## Mr. Nail

marduk said:


> When I was in high school, I had the "Miss Teen [city I live in]" winner that I was dating throw a cinderblock through the windshield of the car I was driving.
> 
> It was still worth it. She was that hot.
> 
> Of course, that was easy to say, it was my buddy's car.


Hold on, That's Passion! To heck with looks and brains I want passion.
MN


----------



## ocotillo

Lila said:


> Penny or Amy Farrah Fowler???


Maybe I'm wrong but I've gotten the impression that the Penny character is supposed to be as smart when it comes to people and relationships as the nerdy boys are when it comes to things.


----------



## minebeloved

The guy has to have something interesting to say, he doesn't have to be a genius, but he does have to not be a complete idiot. I don't know about you but intelligence over beauty, 9 times out of 10.


----------



## Wolf1974

I would take Bernadette over both of them in a heartbeat


----------



## norajane

Lila said:


> She's the socially adept one that helps the guys be "normal".
> 
> For the purposes of the discussion I was having with my husband, she and Amy Farrah Fowler were the best examples I could come up with at the time. Sweet, kind women with polar opposite physical and intellectual characteristics.
> 
> And for the life of me, I can't come up with other examples.


I think this is the typical Ginger v Mary Ann question, lol.


----------



## RandomDude

When it comes to wit honestly I'm happy as long as a woman can hold a conversation with me, otherwise what's the point?


----------



## Thundarr

Lila said:


> She's the socially adept one that helps the guys be "normal".
> 
> For the purposes of the discussion I was having with my husband, she and Amy Farrah Fowler were the best examples I could come up with at the time. Sweet, kind women with polar opposite physical and intellectual characteristics.
> 
> And for the life of me, I can't come up with other examples.


Here's one; I'd Mary Ann more attractive than Ginger to me based on character personality. Another; Kelly Clarkson is more attractive to me then Britney, Christina, or Jessica based on what I know of them (which isn't necessary correct). Oh and Taylor Swift. Her intelligence makes her hot.


----------



## Rowan

Once a guy meets a certain (fairly low) threshold for acceptably attractive, all things being equal, I would take smart and average over hot and dumb. 

I had a friend in college who was just an absolutely stunningly gorgeous man. The kind of man people think has been photoshopped when they see pictures of him. Matt Bromer, but straight and more buff. Just.....astonishing. 

That boy was dumb as a sack of hair. Sweet, sweet guy, but just not bright. Problematically not bright. 

I didn't want to date him. And before anyone asks, yes, dating him would have been an option had I been so inclined. As hot as he was, I just couldn't get past all the stupid.


----------



## richardsharpe

Good evening Anon1111
It may surprise you, but for me it is NOT looks. Maybe is that I'm mature (eg old)? If I think about going out with a woman I imagine / fantasize about the date:

There is the non-intimate part: It could be exploring an exotic foreign city, or an empty piece of wilderness. Maybe some adventure sport withing my (extremely limited) capabilities - parasailing, bungee jumping, kayaking. It is something active - but with lots of time for talking. 

Then there is the build-up. Dinner at a quiet interesting restaurant. Again its time spent talking, and with increasingly serious flirting. 

Then of course there is hot wild sex. 


For the first two, someone interesting to talk to is far more fun that someone who is just attractive. I'd get tired of just looking at a pretty face rather quickly.

Then extremely attractive appearance really isn't that big a deal for good sex. I mean think about it - for most sexual activities you really aren't in a position to get a good overall view of someone. 


I often wonder if the appeal of ultra-attractive women is as a "trophy" - sort of like buying an exotic car - it may impress your friends, but doesn't really do much for you.








Anon1111 said:


> I smell so much BS in this thread.
> 
> The answer is obviously looks.
> 
> Most men would be giving up fingers to be with a 9+ if she was actually a possibility.
> 
> Men convince themselves that they care about other things more because that 9+ is just not available to them.
> 
> If we're talking in the normal distribution of attractiveness, sure other things might take on more importance. If you're debating between a 6 and a 6.25, then you might reasonably pick the smarter 6.
> 
> But I call BS on any man really choosing a dowdy woman over a smoking hot woman if he has the option.


----------



## Marduk

Lila said:


> That we judge other women this way? Or that we judge other men that way?


Hmm... interesting question.

I meant that women judge men the same way, but I know there's a whole women judging women thing going down, too...


----------



## Marduk

Thundarr said:


> Here's one; I'd Mary Ann more attractive than Ginger to me based on character personality. Another; Kelly Clarkson is more attractive to me then Britney, Christina, or Jessica based on what I know of them (which isn't necessary correct). Oh and Taylor Swift. Her intelligence makes her hot.


http://youtu.be/QeDkGnyDv9o (don't know how to embed the video)


----------



## Thundarr

marduk said:


> http://youtu.be/QeDkGnyDv9o (don't know how to embed the video)


Yea I'd go with Betty but I'd be thinking of Wilma :rofl:


----------



## john117

Anon, my wife is a 9 - at 55 she's a size 4-6, impeccably dressed, short raven black hair, brown-yellow skin, good curves where needed, nice face half between Slavic and Asian... No wrinkles thank you Estée Lauder...

Intelligence wise no brainer either. A 10 if there ever was one.

Looks and intelligence as we know now in my case, are not everything. I would rather have a dowdy 6 with room temperature IQ with a heart instead.


----------



## Thor

Lila said:


> I had an argument with my husband last night about this topic. Assuming all else equal, he insisted that intelligence/wit would beat out beauty. That is until I proposed it like this...
> 
> Penny or Amy Farrah Fowler???


The Amy character as she appears in the series (to be distinguished from the actress in real life) does not meet my minimum level of hotness. Personality and intelligence aside, I do not find her sexually attractive and thus would not pursue a relationship with her.

That's the thing for guys, our brains are wired to find certain women sexually attractive but others not. Her other attributes can't really change whether or not we find her attractive. It is a binary thing. If she does tick the box for a man as being attractive, the other attributes can increase or decrease her overall desirability.


----------



## ConanHub

Anon1111 said:


> I smell so much BS in this thread.
> 
> The answer is obviously looks.
> 
> Most men would be giving up fingers to be with a 9+ if she was actually a possibility.
> 
> Men convince themselves that they care about other things more because that 9+ is just not available to them.
> 
> If we're talking in the normal distribution of attractiveness, sure other things might take on more importance. If you're debating between a 6 and a 6.25, then you might reasonably pick the smarter 6.
> 
> But I call BS on any man really choosing a dowdy woman over a smoking hot woman if he has the option.


Pleased to meet you. I am happily living your BS scenario. 

Mrs. Conan could objectively score a 7. Her body is easily a 10 but she is Sally Field cute not smoking hot. Back when I met her, I had my pick, married or not, of probably 95% of women I came across.

I dated more than one model and at least one amazon with out of this world measurements.

They were mostly nice girls but Mrs. Conan had the right stuff.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## Anon1111

I don't think we're talking about the same thing.

People who are picking intelligence over beauty are assuming that you've got two women, both of whom are physically attractive, but one of whom happens to be smart. Obviously you are going to pick the smart one in that circumstance.

I am talking about two women, one of whom is hot, the other is not.

If she doesn't turn you on physically, you might as well have dinner with an interesting guy instead.


----------



## Anon1111

Thundarr said:


> Here's one; I'd Mary Ann more attractive than Ginger to me based on character personality. Another; Kelly Clarkson is more attractive to me then Britney, Christina, or Jessica based on what I know of them (which isn't necessary correct). Oh and Taylor Swift. Her intelligence makes her hot.


All of these women, with the possible exception of Kelly Clarkson, are smoking hot.

Kelly Clarkson is probably hotter than 90 out of 100 women of the same age if you saw her in person. 

The others (in their primes) were probably hotter than 99 out of 100.

Acting like taking Mary Ann is slumming is just crazy!


----------



## Jellybeans

Rowan said:


> I had a friend in college who was just an absolutely stunningly gorgeous man. The kind of man people think has been photoshopped when they see pictures of him. Matt Bromer, but straight and more buff. Just.....astonishing.
> 
> That boy was dumb as a sack of hair. Sweet, sweet guy, but just not bright. Problematically not bright.


Yeah, I mean, "Dumb as a box of rocks" is a turn off, no matter how physically attractive someone is.

I knew a guy like that. Shame. Nice. Just nothing in his brain.


----------



## Wolf1974

Anon1111 said:


> All of these women, with the possible exception of Kelly Clarkson, are smoking hot.
> 
> Kelly Clarkson is probably hotter than 90 out of 100 women of the same age if you saw her in person.
> 
> The others (in their primes) were probably hotter than 99 out of 100.
> 
> Acting like taking Mary Ann is slumming is just crazy!


Beauty and attraction are in the eye of the beholder. In no universe would I describe a Kelly clarkson as anything other than a 4 maybe 5 on a really good day. Just not my type but for others who like that girl next door look she probably is a well bit higher so it just depends


----------



## Anon1111

Wolf1974 said:


> Beauty and attraction are in the eye of the beholder. In no universe would I describe a Kelly clarkson as anything other than a 4 maybe 5 on a really good day. Just not my type but for others who like that girl next door look she probably is a well bit higher so it just depends


I've never seen her in person.

I did have a job briefly many years ago though where I came into contact with a lot of celebrities.

What I was really struck by is how very attractive certain movie stars were in person who on screeen just seem average.

They only look average on screen because they are surrounded by so many truly amazing beauties.

The movie stars that look like 10s on screen were so gorgeous they were almost like freaks. Like when you see an NBA player in person-- it's kind of shocking.

So, I am giving Kelly Clarkson the benefit of the doubt. Otherwise, I'd be inclined to agree with you.


----------



## Marduk

Rowan said:


> Once a guy meets a certain (fairly low) threshold for acceptably attractive, all things being equal, I would take smart and average over hot and dumb.
> 
> I had a friend in college who was just an absolutely stunningly gorgeous man. The kind of man people think has been photoshopped when they see pictures of him. Matt Bromer, but straight and more buff. Just.....astonishing.
> 
> That boy was dumb as a sack of hair. Sweet, sweet guy, but just not bright. Problematically not bright.
> 
> I didn't want to date him. And before anyone asks, yes, dating him would have been an option had I been so inclined. As hot as he was, I just couldn't get past all the stupid.


I bet he got laid a lot, tho.


----------



## Marduk

john117 said:


> Anon, my wife is a 9 - at 55 she's a size 4-6, impeccably dressed, short raven black hair, brown-yellow skin, good curves where needed, nice face half between Slavic and Asian... No wrinkles thank you Estée Lauder...
> 
> Intelligence wise no brainer either. A 10 if there ever was one.
> 
> Looks and intelligence as we know now in my case, are not everything. I would rather have a dowdy 6 with room temperature IQ with a heart instead.


I submit that what you're describing is what you're missing.

You're missing a wife that wants anything to do with you, sex-wise, so that's what you're looking for.

I know, I did the same thing when I split with my first wife. I'm now married to the exact opposite of my first wife -- a brunette instead of a blonde, passionate instead of cold, exotically beautiful rather than classically beautiful, socially smart instead of logically smart, etc, etc, etc.

We still have problems, bro. Just different problems.


----------



## Marduk

Lila said:


> I think the bolded part of your post along with Marduk's post below make for an interesting conversation.
> 
> 
> 
> If men, in general, are truly hard wired to find certain women sexually attractive but others not, does that mean they settle for less when they can't hook 'that' woman? In other words, Do men lower their threshold of what sexually attractive means based on their own abilities to attract 'that' woman?


I read a study once that claimed that what women find attractive is a far wider range of features than what men find attractive.

I don't claim it's a credible study, but that does seem to conform with what I see. 

A hot woman is a hot woman. Most dudes will mostly agree who the hottest woman in the room is.

But sometimes women won't agree who the hottest guy in the room is. At least in my experience.


> I'll admit that I'm genuinely curious about this because I think my experiences are anomalous in the 'animal kingdom'. LOL. I'm closer to Amy Farrah Fowler on the physical looks department than I am to Penny - average on the bell curve (5) - however I've never had issues attracting, what would be generally considered by most, physically attractive men (physically fit - muscular; tall - >6 ft) for long term relationships, including my husband. They've also all shared a similar personality - strong/silent/serious types.


See, the thing is you can't judge you're "sex rank" by your own thoughts. We sometimes have no idea how attractive we are -- good or bad.

You need to judge your attractiveness by the attractiveness of the people you attract, I think, if you want to know.

What I'm trying to say is it's likely you're far hotter than you give yourself credit for.


----------



## SadSamIAm

Intelligence is overrated. So is beauty though.

But I would take beautiful and average intelligence over average looking and very intelligent. All other things being equal.


----------



## Anon1111

Lila said:


> If men, in general, are truly hard wired to find certain women sexually attractive but others not, does that mean they settle for less when they can't hook 'that' woman? In other words, Do men lower their threshold of what sexually attractive means based on their own abilities to attract 'that' woman?


I don't think "settling" is the right term. I think when people talk about "leagues" (i.e., he/she is out of my league) that is more accurate.

People generally have a good understanding of what league they are playing in. When they end up with someone in their league, it's not settling.

For those who are not able to attract people who they themselves find attractive, then I think the problem is that they overestimate what league they're playing in.


----------



## Rowan

marduk said:


> I bet he got laid a lot, tho.


Strangely, not as much as I might have thought for a frat boy who was that good looking. He had 3 girlfriends in the 3 years I knew him - one long term, one for about 3 months, then another he'd been seeing for about 8 months when we all graduated. Our small department spent a lot of time together both in class and out, and he wasn't one of the guys (and there were some) who was notorious for random hook-ups. Women hit on him all the time, though, so he could have if he'd wanted.


----------



## Thor

Lila said:


> If men, in general, are truly hard wired to find certain women sexually attractive but others not, does that mean they settle for less when they can't hook 'that' woman? In other words, Do men lower their threshold of what sexually attractive means based on their own abilities to attract 'that' woman?


No it doesn't mean we settle. Think of it like a light switch. When the switch is off the room is dark. When the switch is on, the room is illuminated. Now you can walk around without stumbling over the kids' roller skates or bumping into a wall even if the bulb is only 15 watts. Put a 100W or 250W bulb in the lamp and the room is much brighter, but new obstacles don't become visible. 15W is bright enough to see, so it is bright enough. But brighter than 15W may make the room more enjoyable. A room with 15W lights may be have much nicer furnishings and be more desirable overall than a poorly furnished room with 100W lighting.

But even the most amazing room is not enticing in the pitch dark.

What is attractive to me in women may not be at all attractive to someone else. In terms of appearance I think it probably is mostly due to what we are exposed to early in life. Sophia Loren was certainly very beautiful when she was 30 years old, but I wouldn't say I find her sexually attractive. But Ginger Rogers at 30 hit all my buttons. It would be easy to find a man who would say the opposite of that.


----------



## ocotillo

Thor said:


> In terms of appearance I think it probably is mostly due to what we are exposed to early in life.


Yes. There's also something in actual personal contact that People magazine styles of photography will never capture. 

A person who's absolutely stunning in photographs can come across as boring and utterly sterile in person while fairly ordinary looking people can carbonate your hormones for reasons you can't really put your finger on.


----------



## john117

marduk said:


> I submit that what you're describing is what you're missing.
> 
> You're missing a wife that wants anything to do with you, sex-wise, so that's what you're looking for.



I'm reporting reality in the looks and intelligence department. But the sex department disconcert is universal for her. I have seen how men look at her all decked out in cruise wear and believe me she does not notice. Or care.

At this point peace of mind is all I need.


----------



## Wolf1974

Anon1111 said:


> I've never seen her in person.
> 
> I did have a job briefly many years ago though where I came into contact with a lot of celebrities.
> 
> What I was really struck by is how very attractive certain movie stars were in person who on screeen just seem average.
> 
> They only look average on screen because they are surrounded by so many truly amazing beauties.
> 
> The movie stars that look like 10s on screen were so gorgeous they were almost like freaks. Like when you see an NBA player in person-- it's kind of shocking.
> 
> So, I am giving Kelly Clarkson the benefit of the doubt. Otherwise, I'd be inclined to agree with you.


well..... fair enough. I can see what you are saying. WWE wrestlers for example look big on tv but then again they all do so it gets dumbed down to a point. i met Hulk Hogan once in person. He was like an upright hairless bear. I didn't know people could grow that big honestly with or without the use of steriods.

so it does stand to reason when you have alot of beautiful people around who's hole profession is basically looking beautiful they would likely dumb each other down a bit. 

good point. Maybe if I met Kelly in person I would think she is much higher than on tv


----------



## Wolf1974

Lila said:


> I think the bolded part of your post along with Marduk's post below make for an interesting conversation.
> 
> 
> 
> If men, in general, are truly hard wired to find certain women sexually attractive but others not, does that mean they settle for less when they can't hook 'that' woman? In other words, Do men lower their threshold of what sexually attractive means based on their own abilities to attract 'that' woman?
> 
> I'll admit that I'm genuinely curious about this because I think my experiences are anomalous in the 'animal kingdom'. LOL. I'm closer to Amy Farrah Fowler on the physical looks department than I am to Penny - average on the bell curve (5) - however I've never had issues attracting, what would be generally considered by most, physically attractive men (physically fit - muscular; tall - >6 ft) for long term relationships, including my husband. They've also all shared a similar personality - strong/silent/serious types.


I can only speak for me but the answer is no. This topic focuses on two traits of a woman, looks and intelligence. It misses to my mind one of the absolute best traits which is attitude/personality.

Give me a kind, loyal, affectionate woman capable of prioritizing a relationship and I will take that over super hot or super intelligent any day of the week.

My GF is a perfect example. She is average intelligence like me. She is defintely above average in looks and body but she is no supermodel but neither am I. What is an absoulte 10 on her is Emotional Maturity, rare find in a woman this age, personality and loyality. After years of a selfish wife, and years of dating shallow and self absorbed women she was an absolute breath of fresh air. For the first time in a long time I felt part of a realtionship and not an accessory to one. all that stems from her great personality which I hold on high.


----------



## richardsharpe

Good evening anon1111
I've really never understood the idea of "leagues". I have a set of things I want, and I found someone who matched those (mostly - some questions I did't know to ask).

I find a lot of women attractive. Yes, there are some women who are way above average, but once I find someone attractive, "smoking hot" isn't very important, other things matter much more. 

The sort of women that I like, like guys like me. Its not that they would be "settling" for me, or me "settling" for them, but that we would each have found someone compatible. 









Anon1111 said:


> snip
> 
> People generally have a good understanding of what league they are playing in. When they end up with someone in their league, it's not settling.
> 
> For those who are not able to attract people who they themselves find attractive, then I think the problem is that they overestimate what league they're playing in.


----------



## Runs like Dog

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vwbKYcBdVyk


----------



## Marduk

Runs like Dog said:


> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vwbKYcBdVyk


I found the presentation funny, but what I found even funnier is an out of shape guy with baggy clothes, a bad haircut, and a gun holster with an "alien" logo on it describing how to get out of the "fun zone" with hot women.

I bet he has a lot of experience with that...

It must suck to be a woman, sometimes.


----------



## ConanHub

marduk said:


> I found the presentation funny, but what I found even funnier is an out of shape guy with baggy clothes, a bad haircut, and a gun holster with an "alien" logo on it describing how to get out of the "fun zone" with hot women.
> 
> I bet he has a lot of experience with that...
> 
> It must suck to be a woman, sometimes.


Thanks for the mental violation! I am laughing and cringing at the same time picturing this guy!&#55357;&#56842;
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## Fozzy

I've always valued wisdom over beauty or intelligence. A beautiful, intelligent woman with no wisdom in her is just a smart, beautiful train wreck.


----------



## learning to love myself

happybut... said:


> That would have amused me no end.


I don't remember working with you?

I have my blonde moments, I guess I'm lucky my husband finds it amusing and cute.


----------



## ConanHub

Horniness and loyalty are good.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## learning to love myself

I think everyone measures Beauty & Intelligence differently. 

One mans 10 might not be a 10 to another man, I have pointed out some beautiful woman to my husband and he will say ehh, she's ok, I guess, then he will point out one he find attractive and I would say REALLY? 

There is the whole cute, beautiful or sexy aspect to what a guy find attractive also or so I have noticed with men I know.

For me I like a manly man, rugged that cleans up well, he doesn't have to be super intelligent, I find street smarts and common sense more attractive than a know it all/book smart Guy that has a Brad Pitt baby face.


----------



## homerjay

happybut... said:


> A question for the men.
> 
> Which attribute would you prioritize / be mostly attracted to in a prospective partner.
> 
> - A nice looking woman who is seriously (meaning uber/mega) intelligent and witty
> 
> or
> 
> - A smoking hot looking woman with average intelligence and wit?


Botb...but to answer fully....itake 40% looksand 60% character.


----------



## WandaJ

happybut... said:


> A question for the men.
> 
> Which attribute would you prioritize / be mostly attracted to in a prospective partner.
> 
> - A nice looking woman who is seriously (meaning uber/mega) intelligent and witty
> 
> or
> 
> - A smoking hot looking woman with average intelligence and wit?


that will probably depends if the man seriously intelligent and witty, or smoking hot with avery intelligence....


----------



## ConanHub

intheory said:


> This guy is physically unattractive and he hates women.
> 
> Ugh.


Don't try to deny that you have overwhelming lust for him!&#55357;&#56841; LOL!!!
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## arbitrator

*While I savor beauty and feminism in a woman, probably as much as the next guy, I totally want to see intelligence, altruism, and a sense of deity in my woman! And I would certainly hope that she would feel the very same way about me!*


----------



## ChristianGrey

Beauty is only skin deep, but ugly is down to the bones.


----------



## kapil

In my opinion, free to talk anything, smoking and loving back me. That's it


----------



## Jung_admirer

Never judge a book by its cover...

A woman's cover is her beauty & intelligence. Her substance is her passion, kindness & integrity.

While the cover is certainly pleasant to experience; without substance, why would you consider a relationship with this person?


----------



## NextTimeAround

As a woman, I have noticed extremely physically beautiful women ending up with losers and....

women about whom one might say "Really, her" who end up with somehot and desireable guy.

I have a late cousin who was extremely beautiful and elegant. I gather that she was the favourite child in the family (did not result in good relations with the other daughter......)

To hear it from her mother, she was so well connected...... so how did end up in her 30s (that was the 80s) desperate to find a husband and then marrying the loser that she did (dried up alcoholic who was dealing in illegal activity, he was a lawyer in his day job).

My experience with her was that she was a selfish b!tch. Maybe that's what many others experienced.

Much has been written about Princess Margaret, who in her day was very beautiful. In one bio that I read, it said that she had p!ssed off all the imperious behaviour. At the late age of 27 (in the 1950s), she married (what was considered in England) a social upstart, the photographer. That marriage was not happy for long. that was not a long marriage either.


----------



## richardsharpe

Good evening all
I think beautiful women have to be careful because some men will be attracted to them for purely shallow reasons. Average looking women seem more likely to get attention from men who actually have something in common. (and the same is true with the genders reversed).

Its also possible that beauty will discourage some potential suitors. A lot of people seem to have this "league", or "ladder" sort of concept - and some average-looking, but otherwise very interesting / desirable men might not approach a beautiful woman. 

Does it make sense for beautiful women to dress down a bit when dating? 

BTW - just to be clear, I am NOT saying what they *should* do, just musing over whether appearing too physically attractive might actually attract a less desirable set of men. 

In the same vein, if I were dating, I would downplay my financial resources - not trying to look poor or anything, but to avoid women attracted to me *just* because of my money. (which is not spectacular, but is enough to attract some people).


----------



## NextTimeAround

I think girls who are raised in environments where they are neglected; treated like the workhorse in the family ; rarely received validation and approval from their parents or other adul significant others........ no matter what they look like, they will likely be needy. 

and thus, we have the tale of the beautiful woman who just couldn't keep a partner.........


----------



## Runs like Dog

Men tend to associate great beauty with high maintenance. Whether that's widely true or not is up for debate. But when a man sees a fine lass he's probably thinking "Well this will be fun until she goes bonkers or I do". Because everyone's doing that back of the envelope math and thinking "If she's so damn hot how come she's not chained to some sheik or Silicon Valley billionaire? What's her major malfunction?"

Let's review - EVERY man Halle Berry has had a serious relationship with has cheated on her. WTF is wrong with that picture?


----------



## happybut...

I initially go for very good-looking men. That is the first thing I notice and it draws me right in. A very good looking face does it for me. 

THAT SAID, if upon meeting him and talking it turns out he has little personality or depth then he loses all sex appeal. And conversely, I've met many men who are nice looking or even physically not my type, but they can become incredibly attractive if they have tons of personality - humor, confidence, playfulness for example.

Do the men who here who keep rating women from 1-10 hotness level not feel that a lower grade looking woman can become incredibly sexually appealing just by the way she conducts herself - a confident woman who is clearly comfortable in her own skin, a woman with a beautiful laugh/voice and can make you laugh? That can make a '5' become a '9' to use your language. And conversely, a super hot woman surely can quickly lose a lot of sex appeal if everything else doesn't really tick the box?

The guy I was recently seeing was not that handsome but he had that je ne said quoi about him that sucked me right in after spending a bit of time together. 

Basically, although I am very visual and have been accused of initially falling for or dating super hot men, in the end, the thing that really sets someone above the rest is sex-appeal - and looks are only a small component of that. Things like way a guy can confidently hold your gaze, his ability to make fun of himself, his humor, his walk, his way of conversing with other people around us and someone who can challenge you a little - that's sexy. If he just sits there looking good and has about as much personality as a door nail them I am out. 

So looks pull me in, but personality either sets it on fire and makes someone sexy, or they become just another handsome face. And as I say, goes the other way. Ordinary looking guy can become super sexy with the right charm. 
Surely the men feel that way and it's not just as simple as 1-10?

This is all speaking about initial attraction, not the deeper qualities that pull you in whole-heartedly for a long term commitment.


----------



## Thor

happybut... said:


> Do the men who here who keep rating women from 1-10 hotness level not feel that a lower grade looking woman can become incredibly sexually appealing just by the way she conducts herself - a confident woman who is clearly comfortable in her own skin, a woman with a beautiful laugh/voice and can make you laugh? That can make a '5' become a '9' to use your language. And conversely, a super hot woman surely can quickly lose a lot of sex appeal if everything else doesn't really tick the box?


Sure, but to use your example, if we define 5 as being something which I find attractive but a 4 is not attractive _to me_, the 4 will _never_ progress to a 5 _for me_ based on other factors. As I said in another post, it is like a light switch. On or off. Whatever it is that trips the wiring in my brain, it needs to be tripped in order to be "hot". 

Once the switch is tripped, she can move up or down on an overall level of desirability. The amazing 10+ could instantly disqualify herself by being dumb as a box or rocks, being a beotch, etc. And the 5 could be an amazing life partner and elevate herself to the very top of the overall desirability scale based on the rest of her attributes.

I think women just have a much lower minimum for men's appearance, and put much more emphasis on other factors.


----------



## ocotillo

Some of the answers on this thread have surprised me. 

Isn't enduring the (metaphorical) loss of fingers, property, etc. because a lady is "9+" or "..that hot" one of the core failings of "Nice guy" behavior?


----------



## happybut...

*I think women just have a much lower minimum for men's appearance, and put much more emphasis on other factors.*[/QUOTE]

From a young age teenage girls are conditioned to gravitate towards handsome men. I grew up with posters on my wall of Rob Lowe and Judd Nelson and now my daughter and friend's young daughters all idolize Chris Hemsworth and Ian Somerholder. Both super gorgeous men.

Books, magazines and movies push handsome men as much as they do beautiful women. Leading men in movies are always built and good looking even in the teen flicks.

I'd say women are just as drawn to looks as men are. It's been that way my whole life with all my female friends and with my kids too. 

We women don't go out to a wine bar and gaze across the room at an ordinary looking guy saying "Oooph, he does it for me." Nope, sadly, just like men, it's the physical aspect of a man that initially grabs your attention.


----------



## Thor

I'm not saying women don't prefer a better looking man over a less good looking man. I think women place less importance on looks when they are interested in a relationship compared to men who generally place more importance on looks. (For a ONS it could be quite different, but that has not been the topic of this thread.)

Can you spot the millionaire in this photo?










If we reversed the genders in that photo, for me I would not find a woman as heavy as that man physically appealing. She could be super smart, funny, interesting, etc, but she would never be _physically_ attractive, aka _hot_.

But I suspect many women would consider dating that man if they got to know him and found him to be smart, funny, interesting, etc. Some women would be even more interested if they discovered he was wealthy, whereas for me a woman of that build would never become sexually attractive to me even if she were a billionaire.


----------



## NextTimeAround

A lot of women found him sexy:










Do a lot of men find her sexy? or just funny?


----------



## Broken at 20

Well, if we are holding all else constant, like, compatibility, similar interest, how we get along, sex drive, skills, career choices, choices in life styles, etc. 




happybut... said:


> A question for the men.
> 
> Which attribute would you prioritize / be mostly attracted to in a prospective partner.
> 
> - A nice looking woman who is seriously (meaning uber/mega) intelligent and witty
> 
> or
> 
> - *A smoking hot looking woman with average intelligence and wit?*


I want this. 

And since I have zero desire to have kids, I don't need to plan on passing on the best genes to them. 
It's a win-win.


----------



## Broken at 20

NextTimeAround said:


> A lot of women found him sexy:


Do you mean James Gandolfini, or Tony Soprano?


----------



## happybut...

Thor said:


> I'm not saying women don't prefer a better looking man over a less good looking man. I think women place less importance on looks when they are interested in a relationship compared to men who generally place more importance on looks. (For a ONS it could be quite different, but that has not been the topic of this thread.)
> 
> Can you spot the millionaire in this photo?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If we reversed the genders in that photo, for me I would not find a woman as heavy as that man physically appealing. She could be super smart, funny, interesting, etc, but she would never be _physically_ attractive, aka _hot_.
> 
> But I suspect many women would consider dating that man if they got to know him and found him to be smart, funny, interesting, etc. Some women would be even more interested if they discovered he was wealthy, whereas for me a woman of that build would never become sexually attractive to me even if she were a billionaire.


If they date him because he is a billionaire, that has nothing to do with finding him or his looks appealing. That's simply an opportunist sacrificing genuine attraction for the 'good life'.


----------



## Thundarr

happybut... said:


> If they date him because he is a billionaire, that has nothing to do with finding him or his looks appealing. That's simply an opportunist sacrificing genuine attraction for the 'good life'.


You're right of course but Thor is on to something in that physical attractiveness is weighed differently across the genders to some degree.

Think musicians either famous or just playing some honkytonk dive. Male musicians attractiveness sky rockets to the women watching the show. It's labelled as sex appeal or prowess I suppose but it's not related to actual looks. Women musicians don't seem to get this boost in sex appeal based on non physical traits like vocal cords and stage presence. Not unless stage presence includes dancing that is.


----------



## homerjay

NextTimeAround said:


> A lot of women found him sexy:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Do a lot of men find her sexy? or just funny?


Depends...if she lost about 100 lbs or so, she'd be OK IMHO....even now her face isn't that bad..


----------



## NextTimeAround

Broken at 20 said:


> Do you mean James Gandolfini, or Tony Soprano?


Seems to me he became Tony Soprano. He was in a couple of commercials so he must have had broad appeal.

Either way, it shows that men that improve their sex appeal by their behaviour more than women can.


----------



## ManHusbandFather

It's hard to answer this question without coming off as full of oneself lol 

I'd say it's good to have both equally across the two people.

If one person is more intelligent or more good looking, it's bound to cause issues one way or the other...unless the one with the lesser quality is either humble, confident or insanely good in bed (joking)

One way or the other it has to even out.

I personally think it'd be great to have it all , but wit is awesome and I adore it. Looks fade, but attraction at some level must exist.


----------



## heartsbeating

Thor said:


> Can you spot the millionaire in this photo?


The woman on the far right?


----------

