# Does Chemistry Override Attraction?



## ArthurGPym (Jun 28, 2021)

Question for the ladies:

If you are single and meet a man who doesn't check all your boxes in looks or physicality, but his personality is mazing and the chemistry between the two of you is electric, can the chemistry override attractiveness in the long run? In other words, can you stay interested in a man based off the energy alone for the long term?


----------



## Livvie (Jan 20, 2014)

I can't imagine chemistry being "electric" without being attracted.


----------



## Lila (May 30, 2014)

From personal experience, my answer is no. 

I have to be physically attracted to the man to stay interested in him sexually which, let's face it, is what separates friends from lovers.


----------



## lifeistooshort (Mar 17, 2013)

Well attractiveness is a function of chemistry. I doubt I'm going to have chemistry with a guy I find unattractive so chemistry implies a certain level of attractive in my eyes.

I certainly could have better chemistry with a guy I initially found attractive bur perhaps less attractive then another. But the chemistry, and hopefully compatibility, would override that spread.


----------



## Diana7 (Apr 19, 2016)

A man's personality and character is a very big part of my attraction to him, but if his looks aren't in anyway attractive to me then it's hard to see how it would work as more than friends.
Mind you, when I met Mr D on line I didn't see his photo for a few days but by then I knew he was special, thankfully once I saw his photo I thought he was attractive to me so that was good!


----------



## 342693 (Mar 2, 2020)

You said he/she doesn't check all the boxes physically, so I'm assuming they check some. There has to be some attraction obviously, but as I get older, I'm looking more at chemistry and other traits too. My STBX was very attractive, but lacked most everything else. 

A good question is do you want a 9/10 in looks with a 5/6 in personality/chemistry...... or 9/10 personality/chemistry and 5/6 in looks? I'll take the latter all day.


----------



## RandomDude (Dec 18, 2010)

SCDad01 said:


> A good question is do you want a *9/10 in looks with a 5/6 in personality/chemistry...... or 9/10 personality/chemistry and 5/6 in looks?* I'll take the latter all day.


I'd rather be alone 😌


----------



## *Deidre* (Feb 7, 2016)

You can think someone is attractive physically, but have zero chemistry. I think my husband is physically attractive for example, but how we “get” each other is what causes that spark/chemistry. If he was just another good looking guy, but boring, selfish, abusive, or a bad speller (that’s important to me ) then, there likely would be no chemistry.


----------



## Max.HeadRoom (Jun 28, 2014)

for me there needs to be attraction 1st and then everything else


----------



## Andy1001 (Jun 29, 2016)

*Deidre* said:


> You can think someone is attractive physically, but have zero chemistry. I think my husband is physically attractive for example, but how we “get” each other is what causes that spark/chemistry. If he was just another good looking guy, but boring, selfish, abusive, or a bad speller (that’s important to me ) then, there likely would be no chemistry.


“A bad speller” as a reason not to be attracted to someone? 
That’s a new one on me lol


----------



## Anastasia6 (May 28, 2017)

ArthurGPym said:


> Question for the ladies:
> 
> If you are single and meet a man who doesn't check all your boxes in looks or physicality, but his personality is mazing and the chemistry between the two of you is electric, can the chemistry override attractiveness in the long run? In other words, can you stay interested in a man based off the energy alone for the long term?


Personally I find personality and other things attractive. So yes. My main love language is acts of service not looks.

Could that overcome quasimoto... probably not. But a bit of kindness, a few acts of service and an undying devotion to me goes a long way compared to anything you put in the physciality box.

For instance, I have always been attracted to dark haired men with hairy chests (father hang ups).
My husand has light hair and less on his legs than I do and only a tiny patch on his chest. I find him wildly attractive.
But that's because I love him and he checks ALL my boxes that I find IMPORTANT.

ETA: I want to make it clear. I am wildly sexually attracted to my husband. But that's because I mentally find him attractive which makes me love all of him. The 'preference' of physicality is for a random unknown man. I much prefer and find attractive the person inside.


----------



## Anastasia6 (May 28, 2017)

RandomDude said:


> I'd rather be alone 😌


And so you are.... This is exactly why. IT's a choice.
And it's ok to make that choice.


----------



## *Deidre* (Feb 7, 2016)

Andy1001 said:


> “A bad speller” as a reason not to be attracted to someone?
> That’s a new one on me lol


Lol!

To have chemistry. You can find someone attractive on the outside, but chemistry requires more than just outward appearance, imo.


----------



## ConanHub (Aug 9, 2013)

Ima gud spelllorr...😋


----------



## In Absentia (Aug 21, 2012)

I would say no. But does attraction override chemistry?


----------



## RebuildingMe (Aug 18, 2019)

SCDad01 said:


> You said he/she doesn't check all the boxes physically, so I'm assuming they check some. There has to be some attraction obviously, but as I get older, I'm looking more at chemistry and other traits too. My STBX was very attractive, but lacked most everything else.
> 
> A good question is do you want a 9/10 in looks with a 5/6 in personality/chemistry...... or 9/10 personality/chemistry and 5/6 in looks? I'll take the latter all day.


I couldn't date a "5" no matter how nice they are. I picture heavy, doesn't take care of herself, etc. There are ways to turn yourself from a "5" to a "7", lose the weight, eat healthier, buy some nice clothes, makeup, hair and nails, etc, etc.

Same for a guy also.


----------



## In Absentia (Aug 21, 2012)

Andy1001 said:


> “A bad speller” as a reason not to be attracted to someone?
> That’s a new one on me lol


I could not live with a bad speller either...


----------



## 342693 (Mar 2, 2020)

RebuildingMe said:


> I couldn't date a "5" no matter how nice they are. I picture heavy, doesn't take care of herself, etc. There are ways to turn yourself from a "5" to a "7", lose the weight, eat healthier, buy some nice clothes, makeup, hair and nails, etc, etc.
> 
> Same for a guy also.


I hear you. But like you said, it's easier for a 5/6 to look better...than a 9/10 to improve personality, etc. 

A 5 would be a stretch for me too, to be honest. Maybe a strong 6 would be a good start.


----------



## 2&out (Apr 16, 2015)

I encourage bad spelzing 

15 Famous Thinkers Who Couldn’t Spell - Lee Lofland


----------



## DownByTheRiver (Jul 2, 2020)

ArthurGPym said:


> Question for the ladies:
> 
> If you are single and meet a man who doesn't check all your boxes in looks or physicality, but his personality is mazing and the chemistry between the two of you is electric, can the chemistry override attractiveness in the long run? In other words, can you stay interested in a man based off the energy alone for the long term?


I can't speak for the long term. Because time does tend to wear on couples. But I do think someone with a great personality that you just click with can make you view them as more attractive. Of course further actions as you live together may completely destroy that.


----------



## gameopoly5 (5 mo ago)

Feeling chemistry towards people doesn`t mean they have to be of the opposite sex or have a romantic interest. It can also mean, compatibility.

There can be chemistry among friends that binds them together, between family members, meaning some relatives we are closer to than others, like a favourite sibling, cousin or uncle for example.
We may find some people of the opposite sex attractive but it doesn`t mean we will like them, because there also has to be chemistry between them.
Physical attraction and chemistry are actually 2 different things.


----------



## DownByTheRiver (Jul 2, 2020)

In Absentia said:


> I would say no. But does attraction override chemistry?


It doesn't for me even though I appreciate a wildly attractive man and have a weakness for that and am shallow in that regard. But I've met quite a few really physically attractive men who I just didn't feel any spark with after talking to them.

I was crazy about one guy who most women I don't think found attractive. But I did think he was attractive and then I found him so literate and charming, but most people got sick of him pretty soon because he would talk your ear off. And in later years I got tired of him repeating himself on certain subjects. But I expect that happens with just about everyone. 

But then I've also had lifelong crush on man I find extremely physically attractive and most women would too, but I wasn't just attracted to his looks which I found intimidating at first. I liked his personality which was quirky. I found him kind of inspiring because he was just recreating himself.


----------



## ConanHub (Aug 9, 2013)

RebuildingMe said:


> I couldn't date a "5" no matter how nice they are. I picture heavy, doesn't take care of herself, etc. There are ways to turn yourself from a "5" to a "7", lose the weight, eat healthier, buy some nice clothes, makeup, hair and nails, etc, etc.
> 
> Same for a guy also.


I think the "scale" must be subjective.


----------



## RebuildingMe (Aug 18, 2019)

SCDad01 said:


> I hear you. But like you said, it's easier for a 5/6 to look better...than a 9/10 to improve personality, etc.
> 
> A 5 would be a stretch for me too, to be honest. Maybe a strong 6 would be a good start.


We are all 9/10 in personality in the beginning. Once your are several months/years in, that "electric" chemistry could be a smoldering dumpster fire. Then you are back to a 5/6, 5/6. Wash, rinse and repeat.


----------



## ConanHub (Aug 9, 2013)

RebuildingMe said:


> I couldn't date a "5" no matter how nice they are. I picture heavy, doesn't take care of herself, etc. There are ways to turn yourself from a "5" to a "7", lose the weight, eat healthier, buy some nice clothes, makeup, hair and nails, etc, etc.
> 
> Same for a guy also.





SCDad01 said:


> I hear you. But like you said, it's easier for a 5/6 to look better...than a 9/10 to improve personality, etc.
> 
> A 5 would be a stretch for me too, to be honest. Maybe a strong 6 would be a good start.


Not trying to nitpick but are you guys 7's ?

I think most people are close to average and I don't picture bad hygiene associated with average.


----------



## RebuildingMe (Aug 18, 2019)

ConanHub said:


> I think the "scale" must be subjective.


Of course it is. Everyone's opinion of a "5" is going to be different. My gut tells me that @RandomDude may see a woman as a "5" and I might think she's a "7/8" and vice versa based upon what we find attractive. It all depends how choosey your are and if you have a realistic view of your own SMV. No right or wrong answer here.


----------



## RebuildingMe (Aug 18, 2019)

RebuildingMe said:


> Of course it is. Everyone's opinion of a "5" is going to be different. My gut tells me that @RandomDude may see a woman as a "5" and I might think she's a "7/8" and vice versa based upon what we find attractive. It all depends how choosey your are and if you have a realistic view of your own SMV. No right or wrong answer here.


Sorry, meant to say @SCDad01. Got confused at who started this thread.


----------



## RebuildingMe (Aug 18, 2019)

ConanHub said:


> Not trying to nitpick but are you guys 7's ?
> 
> I think most people are close to average and I don't picture bad hygiene associated with average.


I'd say yes, especially based upon money, career, independence and education. Probably average in looks, aged well, full head of hair, no gray. No six pack and a smidge under 6 feet. Got the other's 6's though


----------



## ArthurGPym (Jun 28, 2021)

So ugly guys are f*cked... 

Well I guess it is nature's way of weeding out the ugly.


----------



## 342693 (Mar 2, 2020)

ConanHub said:


> Not trying to nitpick but are you guys 7's ?


That's a tough question. Not sure how to answer it and not look egotistical. I'm bald, which makes me look older than I am. But I work out and am in good physical shape. Financially secure and have a very outgoing personality. So I probably average out to a 7. But most people in the dating world only care about looks and first impressions.


----------



## Anastasia6 (May 28, 2017)

ArthurGPym said:


> So ugly guys are f*cked...
> 
> Well I guess it is nature's way of weeding out the ugly.


not really. it seems about 1/2 the women said we look at other things.

The answers are about looks are being weighted by guys who tend to want looks. It's always been a dichotomy of the sexes and of course there are cross overs. Since you aren't dating guys. Look at the female answers. about 1/2 say no and the other 1/2 say other things greatly weight how we 'view' someone.

Also notice some mentioning money which has nothing to do with looks.

Personally, I never considered money when dating. I mean I guess that's wrong in that I never dated a homeless person. But my husband was working a part time job and a college student when I met and married him. I had plenty of other options with more money.


----------



## Anastasia6 (May 28, 2017)

SCDad01 said:


> That's a tough question. Not sure how to answer it and not look egotistical. I'm bald, which makes me look older than I am. But I work out and am in good physical shape. Financially secure and have a very outgoing personality. So I probably average out to a 7. But most people in the dating world only care about looks and first impressions.


I find it funny how guys are like 'naw' they have to have the looks. But when asked to rate yourself you include money and personality in the scale.

I could be wrong but I think the OP was separating out the other features from looks.

So if a person was only shown a picture and knew nothing else about you or Rebuilding what would you rate?


----------



## ArthurGPym (Jun 28, 2021)

It seems that there are a large portion of men, most of them sub-5, who are intelligent and have great qualities who unfortunately will never win a mate simply because they are odd looking. No matter how successful or wealthy they are, no matter how confident and charismatic, if they don't have the looks they do not get to even date available women. And women's requirements seem to have gotten more stringent over the last thirty years or so. Expectations are, in my opinion, ridiculously high nowadays. At least that is my perception.


----------



## In Absentia (Aug 21, 2012)

I am beautiful and successful. So I have both...


----------



## RebuildingMe (Aug 18, 2019)

Anastasia6 said:


> I find it funny how guys are like 'naw' they have to have the looks. But when asked to rate yourself you include money and personality in the scale.
> 
> I could be wrong but I think the OP was separating out the other features from looks.
> 
> So if a person was only shown a picture and knew nothing else about you or Rebuilding what would you rate?


I stand by my 7.

I mention money and social status because, while it may not be what the women of TAM look for, it’s certainly a “thing” in the dating world. All things being equal with looks, a normal person is going to gravitate towards the college educated professionals making 150k a year over the person working the registers at CVS.


----------



## In Absentia (Aug 21, 2012)

ArthurGPym said:


> It seems that there are a large portion of men, most of them sub-5, who are intelligent and have great qualities who unfortunately will never win a mate simply because they are odd looking. No matter how successful or wealthy they are, no matter how confident and charismatic, if they don't have the looks they do not get to even date available women. And women's requirements seem to have gotten more stringent over the last thirty years or so. Expectations are, in my opinion, ridiculously high nowadays. At least that is my perception.


I know lots of below average guys married and married to beautiful women. But they tend to overcome the disadvantages with charisma and wallet.


----------



## SunCMars (Feb 29, 2016)

RandomDude said:


> I'd rather be alone 😌


You are.


----------



## In Absentia (Aug 21, 2012)

DownByTheRiver said:


> It doesn't for me even though I appreciate a wildly attractive man and have a weakness for that and am shallow in that regard. But I've met quite a few really physically attractive men who I just didn't feel any spark with after talking to them.
> 
> I was crazy about one guy who most women I don't think found attractive. But I did think he was attractive and then I found him so literate and charming, but most people got sick of him pretty soon because he would talk your ear off. And in later years I got tired of him repeating himself on certain subjects. But I expect that happens with just about everyone.
> 
> But then I've also had lifelong crush on man I find extremely physically attractive and most women would too, but I wasn't just attracted to his looks which I found intimidating at first. I liked his personality which was quirky. I found him kind of inspiring because he was just recreating himself.


I agree with you... I have been with a few attractive ones, but you need to have chemistry to survive on the long run.


----------



## 342693 (Mar 2, 2020)

Anastasia6 said:


> I find it funny how guys are like 'naw' they have to have the looks. But when asked to rate yourself you include money and personality in the scale.
> 
> I could be wrong but I think the OP was separating out the other features from looks.
> 
> So if a person was only shown a picture and knew nothing else about you or Rebuilding what would you rate?


I'm in my mid 50's, so we have to throw in money and personality since we need all the help we can get...lol.

But seriously, financial security is definitely something women my age look for...much moreso than when I was in my 30's and 40's. I think I'm a 7 without the added extras. I have no problem dating. It's finding chemistry and all the other tangibles that makes it hard. That's why I said 9/10 looks aren't as important for me anymore.


----------



## SunCMars (Feb 29, 2016)

ConanHub said:


> I think the "scale" must be subjective.


Subjective, though, rarely sympathetic!

We are, our seen and imagined flesh.
A bit, our mind.

The whole package, as viewed.

The other's body draws one in, the mind holds them in place, or not.

Some like thin, some fit, some like plump, some curvy.

Mostly, the face needs to be pleasant to look at.
A kind smile works better than that snarl.


----------



## CraigBesuden (Jun 20, 2019)

SCDad01 said:


> I'm in my mid 50's, so we have to throw in money and personality since we need all the help we can get...lol.
> 
> But seriously, financial security is definitely something women my age look for...much moreso than when I was in my 30's and 40's. I think I'm a 7 without the added extras. I have no problem dating. It's finding chemistry and all the other tangibles that makes it hard. That's why I said 9/10 looks aren't as important for me anymore.


In rating yourself, are you comparing yourself to other guys in your mid-50s or to the entire pool of guys?

I think just looks-wise, if the average 25 year old guy is a 5, then the average guy in his mid-50s would be…. lower.


----------



## Rob_1 (Sep 8, 2017)

ArthurGPym said:


> So ugly guys are f*cked...


Wrong assumption. Pheromonically speaking, attraction overrides physical likeness, hence the typical "beauty and the beast" scenario seen by humans since immemorial times where a beautiful male/female is in love with the ugly person, and the whole world shaking its head as to why that pairing could be.

You see it all the time, a girl (or a guy) meeting a man that for all intended purposes he is not in the median of what socially/culturally, we consider attractive, nonetheless, this beautiful woman is madly in love with him, and won't give him up for no reason. So no, ugly guys can also get the pretty woman. It all depends strictly on a chance encounter where without uttering a word the chemistry is so strong that physical attributes won't matters (extreme genetic affinity).

Of course there are men/women that regardless of their instant Pheromonical attraction won't consider due to other factors, such as social/economical standing, and pressures to conform, but some of these people irresistibly would act on it, surreptitiously, so that they don't get found out (some of your typical affairs are of this kind).

And yes, there some Quasimodos out there, living the "Vida Loca" with a very beautiful woman. 

My best friend from childhood was your typical example of the ugly guy. But let me tell you, I personally saw him score some very pretty girls during our late teens to early twenties, and he marry an out of his league woman that always loved him until he passed away (he drank way too much, but always functional).


----------



## 342693 (Mar 2, 2020)

CraigBesuden said:


> In rating yourself, are you comparing yourself to other guys in your mid-50s or to the entire pool of guys?
> 
> I think just looks-wise, if the average 25 year old guy is a 5, then the average guy in his mid-50s would be…. lower.


That's a good point. I was just comparing myself in general. So if comparing myself to other guys in their mid 50's, I guess I would be higher. Hadn't thought of that.


----------



## Anastasia6 (May 28, 2017)

RebuildingMe said:


> I stand by my 7.
> 
> I mention money and social status because, while it may not be what the women of TAM look for, it’s certainly a “thing” in the dating world. All things being equal with looks, a normal person is going to gravitate towards the college educated professionals making 150k a year over the person working the registers at CVS.


Sure if you are a 7 trying for a 9 then you can certainly find ones who use wallet to even the score. But just remember when those are the women you choose to date... you can't really be surprised when later a larger wallet or similar wallet better looking is more attractive to them.

I'm talking quality. I think if you want a quality relationship you should look for partners who aren't bumping up your score because of money.

Also how many men on this site lament when they divorce and wifey wants $ well if you bought her it's going to cost so to speak. Or men lament that their girl doesn't pay her 1/2. again if you are using money to get her to choose you the logical conclusion is you are going to have to spend that money on her.

I'm sure there are plenty of women who are 9's who don't shallowly choose a man based on money. BUT they then can get 9's in looks as well.


----------



## Mybabysgotit (Jul 1, 2019)

ArthurGPym said:


> So ugly guys are f*cked...
> 
> Well I guess it is nature's way of weeding out the ugly.


Not necessarily, there's someone for everyone. My next door neighbor is far from attractive, he's about 5'4", big stomach, balding, yet he's married. I wouldn't call his wife a 10, but at least it's a female.


----------



## ConanHub (Aug 9, 2013)

Having recently engaged in one of my favorite pastimes (people watching) at the state fair, I noticed quite a lot of so so looking guys that probably didn't have a lot of money and they were partnered up with some fairly attractive women.


----------



## Anastasia6 (May 28, 2017)

ArthurGPym said:


> So ugly guys are f*cked...
> 
> Well I guess it is nature's way of weeding out the ugly.


So OP you are indicating you aren't high on the looks scale and asking if personality can overcome that. I think it can. So are you sure your personality is a good one? Are you ruling out women of equal 'looks' and only going for the high numbers? Cause there are plenty of women who aren't high numbers who love to date. Same as you.


----------



## Andy1001 (Jun 29, 2016)

ArthurGPym said:


> So ugly guys are f*cked...


Yeah. And not in a good way 😉


----------



## DownByTheRiver (Jul 2, 2020)

SCDad01 said:


> I'm in my mid 50's, so we have to throw in money and personality since we need all the help we can get...lol.
> 
> But seriously, financial security is definitely something women my age look for...much moreso than when I was in my 30's and 40's. I think I'm a 7 without the added extras. I have no problem dating. It's finding chemistry and all the other tangibles that makes it hard. That's why I said 9/10 looks aren't as important for me anymore.


I think women who have been through divorce or the equivalent are very often not gold digging but just being careful that they don't get mixed up with someone who is going to be a drain on them financially or otherwise. Because a lot of them have been through financial woes with a significant other or husband and just don't want to get dug in any deeper if it turns out someone is irresponsible. And of course that someone might be themselved as well and that would be the ones that might be more looking for a free ride.


----------



## Andy1001 (Jun 29, 2016)

In Absentia said:


> I could not live with a bad speller either...


Do you mean good speller in the Hermione from Harry Potter sense?
I can understand that alright. 🪄


----------



## DownByTheRiver (Jul 2, 2020)

Anastasia6 said:


> So OP you are indicating you aren't high on the looks scale and asking if personality can overcome that. I think it can. So are you sure your personality is a good one? Are you ruling out women of equal 'looks' and only going for the high numbers? Cause there are plenty of women who aren't high numbers who love to date. Same as you.


That is the key, isn't it? All you have to do is go in Walmart on a weekend and you'll see couples of every degree of looks. It won't keep you from getting paired up unless you are holding out for someone way out of your attractiveness range. Because people who are very attractive have a much broader choice of those interested in them so there's just no reason they can't find a guy who is not only nice but also nice and attractive and that doesn't make them shallow. It's just common sense.


----------



## Bulfrog1987 (Oct 8, 2021)

I don’t believe you can have one without the other truly. So


----------



## In Absentia (Aug 21, 2012)

Andy1001 said:


> Do you mean good speller in the Hermione from Harry Potter sense?
> I can understand that alright. 🪄


I'm afraid she is too young for me...


----------



## Lila (May 30, 2014)

ConanHub said:


> I think the "scale" must be subjective.



I mentioned this on another thread. I was part of a FB singles group where they were asked to rate themselves. Everyone rated themselves 7+. I blame an abundance of self confidence or a lack of self awareness. 😳


----------



## Diana7 (Apr 19, 2016)

Anastasia6 said:


> Personally I find personality and other things attractive. So yes. My main love language is acts of service not looks.
> 
> Could that overcome quasimoto... probably not. But a bit of kindness, a few acts of service and an undying devotion to me goes a long way compared to anything you put in the physciality box.
> 
> ...


Very much like me. Mr D isn't the usual sort of guy I used to go for looks wise, he is tall and slim while I used to go for the stockier rugby player type, but the chemistry was always very strong because he is the whole package. I love his integrity and personality and strong values, his very laid back and easy-going nature, his strong Christian faith and his discipline.


----------



## RandomDude (Dec 18, 2010)

Anastasia6 said:


> And so you are.... This is exactly why. IT's a choice.
> And it's ok to make that choice.


Attraction is not a choice 😑


----------



## Diana7 (Apr 19, 2016)

ConanHub said:


> Not trying to nitpick but are you guys 7's ?
> 
> I think most people are close to average and I don't picture bad hygiene associated with average.


I agree, and I hate this way of grading people.


----------



## Not (Jun 12, 2017)

Edited till further notice lol!

I mis-read the OP. My answer is yes. Chemistry can over-ride physical attraction if the physical attraction factor can somehow be set aside in the beginning. A beautiful person isn't necessarily a 7 or higher. The whole package is taken into consideration.


----------



## leftfield (Mar 29, 2016)

I think one of the problems people are having is you are trying to put to much into one scale. There are multiple scales to consider here. There is the whole how physically attractive is the person. Then there is a separate scale for how good of a match they are (I.e. chemistry). And if someone is a good mach for you their attractiveness will climb in your eyes. Then there is a third scale about how much do you want to invest in a possible relationship. Plus who knows how many other variables.

What if somebody is physically a 5, but the compatibility of you two is a 10. Does that make a difference? It does to me, and I'm probably not an outlier on this.

What if somebody is physically a 10 and your compatibility is an 8 and you are just not ready for a relationship right then so you desire/ability to invest in the relationship is a 2. Is that relationship going to work out? I doubt it.


----------



## RandomDude (Dec 18, 2010)

Lila said:


> I mentioned this on another thread. I was part of a FB singles group where they were asked to rate themselves. Everyone rated themselves 7+. I blame an abundance of self confidence or a lack of self awareness. 😳


Beauty is in the eye of the beholder, I've been with women who folks ask me if I'm settling or that I could do much better (🙄) but I was happy. Attraction is a very subjective thing for me, and heck I have various threads showcasing preferences. 

My ex a decade ago had a body to die for but I was never really attracted to her features, hell my last ex was the opposite drop dead gorgeous but her body wasn't my type (yet seems to be universally desired by other men) even if her features were.

I also rate myself a 7+ only based on this matrix as I've always been nothing but a fun score for most women in my youth.


----------



## ConanHub (Aug 9, 2013)

Diana7 said:


> I agree, and I hate this way of grading people.


I don't employ the scale personally.

Exploring mathematically attractive traits is interesting but I believe most folks (who use a scale) are doing it subjectively.


----------



## ArthurGPym (Jun 28, 2021)

Anastasia6 said:


> So OP you are indicating you aren't high on the looks scale and asking if personality can overcome that. I think it can. So are you sure your personality is a good one? Are you ruling out women of equal 'looks' and only going for the high numbers? Cause there are plenty of women who aren't high numbers who love to date. Same as you.


Not at all. I'm average. I have dated women who were beautiful and some "plain" women too. I have been reading a lot about depopulation trends facing humanity over the next 100 years and am wondering why increasing numbers of men are not marrying. I understand that some men just refuse to marry because of fear of divorce and the cost to them if their marriage fails. But I also wonder if the standards of women have grown so high as to alienate most of the men who fall in the middle range


----------



## Not (Jun 12, 2017)

Over my dead body am I going to rate my physical appearance. There's just something really icky when thinking about doing that. My personality? I'm a 10 lol! Because I don't take myself seriously lol!


----------



## ConanHub (Aug 9, 2013)

Lila said:


> I mentioned this on another thread. I was part of a FB singles group where they were asked to rate themselves. Everyone rated themselves 7+. I blame an abundance of self confidence or a lack of self awareness. 😳


Yeah. The greatest percentage of humanity kind of has to be somewhere near the average range doesn't it?


----------



## DownByTheRiver (Jul 2, 2020)

ArthurGPym said:


> Not at all. I'm average. I have dated women who were beautiful and some "plain" women too. I have been reading a lot about depopulation trends facing humanity over the next 100 years and am wondering why increasing numbers of men are not marrying. I understand that some men just refuse to marry because of fear of divorce and the cost to them if their marriage fails. But I also wonder if the standards of women have grown so high as to alienate most of the men who fall in the middle range


I don't really see a decrease in population growth as a problem. In fact I see it as a plus. It would solve a lot of problems.


----------



## ConanHub (Aug 9, 2013)

ArthurGPym said:


> Question for the ladies:
> 
> If you are single and meet a man who doesn't check all your boxes in looks or physicality, but his personality is mazing and the chemistry between the two of you is electric, can the chemistry override attractiveness in the long run? In other words, can you stay interested in a man based off the energy alone for the long term?


I now grok what you are saying.

I'm obviously not a lady but I would think so.

As long as a man has some basic ok looks and physicality, I'm positive a woman would be very happy with really good chemistry.

I've seen it play out often.


----------



## Anastasia6 (May 28, 2017)

ArthurGPym said:


> Not at all. I'm average. I have dated women who were beautiful and some "plain" women too. I have been reading a lot about depopulation trends facing humanity over the next 100 years and am wondering why increasing numbers of men are not marrying. I understand that some men just refuse to marry because of fear of divorce and the cost to them if their marriage fails. But I also wonder if the standards of women have grown so high as to alienate most of the men who fall in the middle range


If you go by this board.....
The lack of marriages seems two fold. Many people just having long term relationships without marriage 
and people refusing to get married. I see more men on this board swearing they will never remarry than women. There are some of each.

I'm not in the dating field. I can say I would not want to be with someone who didn't want to marry. I want someone who desperately wants me, all of me, forever. If that isn't the guy I'm dating I'd next him. Me and my husband married 5 weeks after our first date (29 year married) I had previously turned down quite a few marriage proposals so it wasn't 'just wanting to be married'. 

This style is of course different than most. Which is why there is someone out there for everyone. I always lament when I see people so focused on looks. As they change. Of course personality changes too but people who tend to spend quality time together tend to meld their personalities and stay compatible. Without quality time that can certainly be a problem as the personalities going in opposite directions will create strife.

Since marrying my husband he's gained weight, lost weight, lost some hair, hearing, eyesight. None of that matters to me. He's still my guy on the inside. I think I'll be wildly sexually attracted to him until we just can't go anymore. That wouldn't be true if I was only looking at physical attraction. 

As Random says he can't control his attraction. I guess I can. I am attracted to the inside. I spent years as a teen training my brain to look at how people acted and the results. So I can look at someone's picture and randomly find them attractive or not. But I'll never find anyone I"m sexually attracted to more than my husband because he's the one I'm closest to, feel loved by, like his personality. He'll never compete with someone like.... hard to even think of anyone... The Witcher. But he'll never have to.. Conversely most beautiful people I know ruin it for me once they speak.


----------



## RandomDude (Dec 18, 2010)

I tried so hard to train my mind to change my preferences, for my ex's sake but I couldn't despite being in love with her. The only thing I managed to do is draw from romantic and sensual attraction to fuel the sexual.

Guess that's why Anakin was considered too old to be trained as a Jedi 😑


----------



## TXTrini (Oct 2, 2013)

ArthurGPym said:


> Question for the ladies:
> 
> If you are single and meet a man who doesn't check all your boxes in looks or physicality, but his personality is mazing and the chemistry between the two of you is electric, can the chemistry override attractiveness in the long run? In other words, can you stay interested in a man based off the energy alone for the long term?


It depends on what "who doesn't check all your boxes in looks or physicality," means. I don't have boxes, it's either yes/no with respect to attraction, how much we have in common, how we relate. In my experience, "ugly" men have just as many issues as "handsome" men. 

And yes, I have been shallow enough to not want to date a guy who I just couldn't find attractive enough, he was sexy enough otherwise (attitude), made very good money and was inclined to be very generous to me, but I just didn't think I could wake up to that mug every day and couldn't do it. Btw, I don't consider myself a 9/10. 

However, there were other things I thought would be a problem later on, I didn't like his politics and don't particularly care to clash with someone more than necessary. 



ArthurGPym said:


> So ugly guys are f*cked...


Only if they are shallow and think women who are interested in them as they are beneath them.


----------



## 342693 (Mar 2, 2020)

Taking the looks angle a step farther....

It would be interesting to know if a couple is quite different in the looks department (say one is a 9, the other a 5)...who cheats most often when one is unfaithful? I know it's easy to say looks don't mean someone will cheat. But you certainly would have more opportunity, right?


----------



## RandomDude (Dec 18, 2010)

SCDad01 said:


> Taking the looks angle a step farther....
> 
> It would be interesting to know if a couple is quite different in the looks department (say one is a 9, the other a 5)...who cheats most often when one is unfaithful? I know it's easy to say looks don't mean someone will cheat. But you certainly would have more opportunity, right?


Honestly I would trust a 9 who is used to and can handle attention than a 5 who gets flustered from attention she never gets and is easily seduced. 

Opportunities do not reflect reactions, convictions etc after all.


----------



## Not (Jun 12, 2017)

SCDad01 said:


> Taking the looks angle a step farther....
> 
> It would be interesting to know if a couple is quite different in the looks department (say one is a 9, the other a 5)...who cheats most often when one is unfaithful? I know it's easy to say looks don't mean someone will cheat. But you certainly would have more opportunity, right?


If the 9 is with the 5 to begin with that tells me the 9 isn't the shallow type. This particular 9 most likely values intelligence/emotional maturity and character so therefore this 9 is also made up of these things. That's where my mind went with the question anyway.


----------



## RandomDude (Dec 18, 2010)

TXTrini said:


> It depends on what "who doesn't check all your boxes in looks or physicality," means. I don't have boxes, it's either yes/no with respect to attraction, how much we have in common, how we relate. In my experience, "ugly" men have just as many issues as "handsome" men.
> 
> And yes, I have been shallow enough to not want to date a guy who I just couldn't find attractive enough, he was sexy enough otherwise (attitude), made very good money and was inclined to be very generous to me, but I just didn't think I could wake up to that mug every day and couldn't do it. Btw, I don't consider myself a 9/10.
> 
> ...


I used to be a 9 when younger, opportunities presented themselves daily with fawns, stares. Ironically I hated it, it was too much attention, cars would stop and girls would point and stare, was like something wrong with me.

Better to be a 7 or 8, but no lower lol


----------



## CraigBesuden (Jun 20, 2019)

RandomDude said:


> View attachment 92796


Except maybe he’s in her “husband zone” and she’s in his “fun zone.”


----------



## RandomDude (Dec 18, 2010)

Not said:


> If the 9 is with the 5 to begin with that tells me the 9 isn't the shallow type. This particular 9 most likely values intelligence/emotional maturity and character so therefore this 9 is also made up of these things. That's where my mind went with the question anyway.


Or the 5 is rich


----------



## Not (Jun 12, 2017)

RandomDude said:


> Or the 5 is rich


Saw that one coming.


----------



## ConanHub (Aug 9, 2013)

SCDad01 said:


> Taking the looks angle a step farther....
> 
> It would be interesting to know if a couple is quite different in the looks department (say one is a 9, the other a 5)...who cheats most often when one is unfaithful? I know it's easy to say looks don't mean someone will cheat. But you certainly would have more opportunity, right?


See below 👇


RandomDude said:


> Honestly I would trust a 9 who is used to and can handle attention than a 5 who gets flustered from attention she never gets and is easily seduced.
> 
> Opportunities do not reflect reactions, convictions etc after all.


Very accurate.


----------



## RandomDude (Dec 18, 2010)

CraigBesuden said:


> Except maybe he’s in her “husband zone” and she’s in his “fun zone.”


I was broke AF in my 20s before marriage so I never qualified past no go or fun zone 

Only ex wife didn't care about that at the time because she had her own wealth and family.


----------



## CraigBesuden (Jun 20, 2019)

ArthurGPym said:


> So ugly guys are f*cked...
> 
> Well I guess it is nature's way of weeding out the ugly.


Not if they’re rich or have something else to offer. Even if not physically attractive.


----------



## TXTrini (Oct 2, 2013)

ArthurGPym said:


> Not at all. I'm average. I have dated women who were beautiful and some "plain" women too. I have been reading a lot about depopulation trends facing humanity over the next 100 years and am wondering why increasing numbers of men are not marrying. I understand that some men just refuse to marry because of fear of divorce and the cost to them if their marriage fails. * But I also wonder if the standards of women have grown so high as to alienate most of the men who fall in the middle range*


I don't think it's only men who are choosing not to marry; quite a lot of women are choosing that also. It's no longer necessary for survival, so people on the whole can be more discerning about compatibility.

It used to be a good husband was a good provider, full stop. Then, it became good provider, plus not drunk/abusive, then that plus didn't cheat, so now it's becoming more in line with Maslow's hierarchy of needs. 

A much larger percentage of women can provide for themselves and their children, so financial stability becomes more a standard of being a responsible adult to be considered as a suitable mate at all. More men are expecting more women to be financially able too, they don't want 100% financial burden for their families, so it's ridiculous to expect a woman not to have her own increasing requirements.


----------



## CraigBesuden (Jun 20, 2019)

I’ve heard that when people see and ugly guy with a hot woman, they assume he’s rich. But when they see a hot guy with an ugly woman, they are simply confused.


----------



## RandomDude (Dec 18, 2010)

CraigBesuden said:


> Not if they’re rich or have something else to offer. Even if not physically attractive.


Big wallet or a big... personality!!! 😊


----------



## Enigma32 (Jul 6, 2020)

Anastasia6 said:


> I'm sure there are plenty of women who are 9's who don't shallowly choose a man based on money. BUT they then can get 9's in looks as well.


Is it any less shallow to choose someone for looks instead of choosing them for money?


----------



## Anastasia6 (May 28, 2017)

Enigma32 said:


> Is it any less shallow to choose someone for looks instead of choosing them for money?


I find them both equally shallow. Kind of my point. If you choose shallow people you are likely to find you aren't in a quality relationship.

ETA: I don't choose men by money or looks. Does it play some small factor sure. But not my main issue


----------



## DownByTheRiver (Jul 2, 2020)

Attraction has some innate biological factors. You can't just make yourself be attracted to somebody. If someone is just choosing someone for money, shallow isn't really the issue. The issue is there a prostitute whether it's male or female.


----------



## Lila (May 30, 2014)

ConanHub said:


> Yeah. The greatest percentage of humanity kind of has to be somewhere near the average range doesn't it?


I'm of the mind that we're normally distributed, meaning 2/3 are average or "normal". The remainder are more or less attractive than average. This isn't to say that attraction isn't subjective but on any given day, most people will judge the average looking people as average much more often than above or below average, if that makes sense.


----------



## ArthurGPym (Jun 28, 2021)

TXTrini said:


> . It's no longer necessary for survival, so people on the whole can be more discerning about compatibility.


Maybe not for the woman and her children, but in the far future it could cause serious issues for humanity of we are not at least replacing ourselves with at least one new human.


----------



## Faithful Wife (Oct 31, 2012)

ArthurGPym said:


> Maybe not for the woman and her children, but in the far future it could cause serious issues for humanity of we are not at least replacing ourselves with at least one new human.


It would actually be better for humanity if we don't continue to over populate.


----------



## Anastasia6 (May 28, 2017)

TXTrini said:


> I don't think it's only men who are choosing not to marry; quite a lot of women are choosing that also. It's no longer necessary for survival, so people on the whole can be more discerning about compatibility.
> 
> It used to be a good husband was a good provider, full stop. Then, it became good provider, plus not drunk/abusive, then that plus didn't cheat, so now it's becoming more in line with Maslow's hierarchy of needs.
> 
> A much larger percentage of women can provide for themselves and their children, so financial stability becomes more a standard of being a responsible adult to be considered as a suitable mate at all. More men are expecting more women to be financially able too, they don't want 100% financial burden for their families, so it's ridiculous to expect a woman not to have her own increasing requirements.


I absolutely agree that now that women can earn their own stability they have less patience for some of the still persistent behaviors from the past. However, there are still many women more dependent on a man's earnings so the men who think and rule with their wallets can still call the shots.


----------



## ArthurGPym (Jun 28, 2021)

Faithful Wife said:


> It would actually be better for humanity if we don't continue to over populate.


In the short term yes, some depopulation over the next 100 years would be beneficial, problem is once you get humanity used to the 0-1 child per pair, in the long run humanity will see an ongoing decline that may not be able to be turned around. To a nihilist or a misanthrope then it's all I good I guess.


----------



## TXTrini (Oct 2, 2013)

ArthurGPym said:


> Maybe not for the woman and her children, but in the far future it could cause serious issues for humanity of we are not at least replacing ourselves with at least one new human.


People are still breeding like rabbits, I hardly think that'll be a problem for humanity. In any case, the strongest and fittest will survive and adapt as does any other species. Natural selection is actually a good thing, of course, the individual may not think so. But think about it, how can we become better as a species if we pick the worst of the worst to reproduce?


----------



## Anastasia6 (May 28, 2017)

ArthurGPym said:


> In the short term yes, some depopulation over the next 100 years would be beneficial, problem is once you get humanity used to the 0-1 child per pair, in the long run humanity will see an ongoing decline that may not be able to be turned around. To a nihilist or a misanthrope then it's all I good I guess.


Actually 1 child could easily be a balance point since we have longer life spans. you make 1 child. They and another person make 1 child but their children also make a child before you die and now days your grand child could make a child before you die. My Husbands grandparents are all in their 90's.


----------



## Lila (May 30, 2014)

ArthurGPym said:


> Not at all. I'm average. I have dated women who were beautiful and some "plain" women too. I have been reading a lot about depopulation trends facing humanity over the next 100 years and am wondering why increasing numbers of men are not marrying. I understand that some men just refuse to marry because of fear of divorce and the cost to them if their marriage fails. But I also wonder if the standards of women have grown so high as to alienate most of the men who fall in the middle range


Depopulation trends has to do with dropping birth rates. People are still getting married or partnering up into long term relationships but are either choosing to have fewer children or remain childless. 

IIRC, the birth rate needed to maintain the population is 2.1(?). I myself have only 1 child, by choice. My 3 siblings have none. Of my bffs, 3 have 1 child, 2 have 2, and 1 has none. I only know a handful of people with more than 2 kids. All of us have been or are married / in LTR.


----------



## TXTrini (Oct 2, 2013)

Lila said:


> Depopulation trends has to do with dropping birth rates. People are still getting married or partnering up into long term relationships but are either choosing to have fewer children or remain childless.
> 
> IIRC, the birth rate needed to maintain the population is 2.1(?). I myself have only 1 child, by choice. My 3 siblings have none. Of my bffs, 3 have 1 child, 2 have 2, and 1 has none. I only know a handful of people with more than 2 kids. All of us have been or are married / in LTR.


Add me to the married but chose to be childless group.


----------



## Lila (May 30, 2014)

RandomDude said:


> Beauty is in the eye of the beholder, I've been with women who folks ask me if I'm settling or that I could do much better (🙄) but I was happy. Attraction is a very subjective thing for me, and heck I have various threads showcasing preferences.
> 
> My ex a decade ago had a body to die for but I was never really attracted to her features, hell my last ex was the opposite drop dead gorgeous but her body wasn't my type (yet seems to be universally desired by other men) even if her features were.
> 
> ...


Physical attraction is subjective but it terms of determining "average", you have to look at the overall picture. Most found your ex wife a bombshell but you weren't attracted. You found your ex gf attractive but most didn't. You have to gauge your responses amongst the many to get a median score.


----------



## Cletus (Apr 27, 2012)

TXTrini said:


> People are still breeding like rabbits, I hardly think that'll be a problem for humanity. In any case, the strongest and fittest will survive and adapt as does any other species. Natural selection is actually a good thing, of course, the individual may not think so. But think about it, how can we become better as a species if we pick the worst of the worst to reproduce?





https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Projections_of_population_growth



"The 2019 projections from the United Nations Population Division show that annual world population growth peaked at 2.1% in 1968, has since dropped to 1.1%, and could drop even further to 0.1% by 2100, which would be a growth rate not seen since pre-industrial revolution days.[4] Based on this, the UN Population Division projects the world population, which is 7.8 billion as of 2020, to level out around 2100 at 10.9 billion (the median line),[5][6] assuming a continuing decrease in the global average fertility rate from 2.5 births per woman during the 2015–2020 period to 1.9 in 2095–2100, according to the medium-variant projection.[7] A 2014 projection has the population continuing to grow into the next century.[8] "


----------



## Cletus (Apr 27, 2012)

Lila said:


> I only know a handful of people with more than 2 kids. All of us have been or are married / in LTR.


Then you don't live in a predominantly Conservative Catholic or Mormon area, I take it. 

Mormons 40-59 have had an average of 3.4 children in their lifetime, for instance. At the current growth rate of that church, a politician will not be able to get elected in the US before the end of the century without their support if they vote as a bloc.


----------



## TXTrini (Oct 2, 2013)

Cletus said:


> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Projections_of_population_growth
> 
> 
> 
> "The 2019 projections from the United Nations Population Division show that annual world population growth peaked at 2.1% in 1968, has since dropped to 1.1%, and could drop even further to 0.1% by 2100, which would be a growth rate not seen since pre-industrial revolution days.[4] Based on this, the UN Population Division projects the world population, which is 7.8 billion as of 2020, to level out around 2100 at 10.9 billion (the median line),[5][6] assuming a continuing decrease in the global average fertility rate from 2.5 births per woman during the 2015–2020 period to 1.9 in 2095–2100, according to the medium-variant projection.[7] A 2014 projection has the population continuing to grow into the next century.[8] "


Still, 10 billion people? Most of whom live in abject poverty. I wouldn't be worried unless we were under 1 billion.


----------



## RandomDude (Dec 18, 2010)

Lila said:


> Physical attraction is subjective but it terms of determining "average", you have to look at the overall picture. Most found your ex wife a bombshell but you weren't attracted. You found your ex gf attractive but most didn't. You have to gauge your responses amongst the many to get a median score.


Well, both of them easily scored 8-9 among the masses. But screw the masses! 😑 

Besides a lot of my mates would fk anything with a heartbeat so


----------



## TXTrini (Oct 2, 2013)

Cletus said:


> Then you don't live in a predominantly Conservative Catholic or Mormon area, I take it.
> 
> Mormons 40-59 have had an average of 3.4 children in their lifetime, for instance. At the current growth rate of that church, a politician will not be able to get elected in the US before the end of the century without their support if they vote as a bloc.


Well, they don't prioritize looks, but their lifestyle and principles in mate selection as far as I have observed. 

Maybe this is Darwinism in action 🤔 Natural selection for desirable attitudes to enhance the population at large, undesired ones will eventually die off and not be replaced.


----------



## Anastasia6 (May 28, 2017)

TXTrini said:


> Well, they don't prioritize looks, but their lifestyle and principles in mate selection as far as I have observed.
> 
> Maybe this is Darwinism in action 🤔 Natural selection for desirable attitudes to enhance the population at large, undesired ones will eventually die off and not be replaced.


Around my parts the uneducated drains on society seem to populate more than any other sector.


----------



## TXTrini (Oct 2, 2013)

Anastasia6 said:


> Around my parts the uneducated drains on society seem to populate more than any other sector.


True. Uneducated does not necessarily mean undesirable though. Some of the stupidest people I've met are educated out the wazoo.


----------



## DownByTheRiver (Jul 2, 2020)

SCDad01 said:


> Taking the looks angle a step farther....
> 
> It would be interesting to know if a couple is quite different in the looks department (say one is a 9, the other a 5)...who cheats most often when one is unfaithful? I know it's easy to say looks don't mean someone will cheat. But you certainly would have more opportunity, right?


But someone who hadn't had much experience might be the one who cheats just because they feel they didn't get it out of their system.


----------



## RandomDude (Dec 18, 2010)

Anastasia6 said:


> Around my parts the uneducated drains on society seem to populate more than any other sector.





TXTrini said:


> True. Uneducated does not necessarily mean undesirable though. Some of the stupidest people I've met are educated out the wazoo.


From what I've noticed the dumber ones have more kids. No offense!


----------



## Lila (May 30, 2014)

Cletus said:


> Then you don't live in a predominantly Conservative Catholic or Mormon area, I take it.
> 
> Mormons 40-59 have had an average of 3.4 children in their lifetime, for instance. At the current growth rate of that church, a politician will not be able to get elected in the US before the end of the century without their support if they vote as a bloc.


You're right. I don't live in a predominately Catholic or Mormon area, and yes Mormons do have A LOT of kids. 

My bf is neither Catholic or Mormon. My friends refer to him "as the guy with all of the kids" and he's only got 4. Lol. It's definitely a different area.


----------



## ArthurGPym (Jun 28, 2021)

TXTrini said:


> People are still breeding like rabbits, I hardly think that'll be a problem for humanity. In any case, the strongest and fittest will survive and adapt as does any other species. Natural selection is actually a good thing, of course, the individual may not think so. But think about it, how can we become better as a species if we pick the worst of the worst to reproduce?


From what I have read they are not breeding like rabbits. Not in the US, and definitely not in Europe or China. Africa and parts of Central and South America still have good 3+ birthrates for couples, but everywhere else is 2 kids and under, not enough for humanity to sustain the current level of population over the next couple of centuries. Again, I'm not saying that this is a bad thing for us, but for the Earth of the 23rd Century beyond we could see the world population cut in half. Again, if you are an avid environmentalist aor a misanthrope who believes all evils on earth originate from humans, then this will be good news. It's all a matter of perspective.


----------



## ArthurGPym (Jun 28, 2021)

Lila said:


> Depopulation trends has to do with dropping birth rates. People are still getting married or partnering up into long term relationships but are either choosing to have fewer children or remain childless.
> 
> IIRC, the birth rate needed to maintain the population is 2.1(?). I myself have only 1 child, by choice. My 3 siblings have none. Of my bffs, 3 have 1 child, 2 have 2, and 1 has none. I only know a handful of people with more than 2 kids. All of us have been or are married / in LTR.


What also skews the numbers is elder longevity. People are living longer now. Attrition used to keep the populations cycling at a fairly consistent pattern until the 20th Century and the medical advances that occurred.


----------



## Tiddytok5 (8 mo ago)

ArthurGPym said:


> Question for the ladies:
> 
> If you are single and meet a man who doesn't check all your boxes in looks or physicality, but his personality is mazing and the chemistry between the two of you is electric, can the chemistry override attractiveness in the long run? In other words, can you stay interested in a man based off the energy alone for the long term?



No it can't. It will eventually cause problems and cause the person who isn't attracted ..to go involve themselves with someone visually appealing.

We all need to be visually stimulated firstly before wanting to proceed further...

and would like to remain that way for however long it is intended to last.




It bothers you alot that you aren't visually attracted to him.

This is why you are here.


If it bothers you this much, find someone else who is visually appealing to you, who will treat you well.

This seems like a deal breaker for you.


We are all shallow, vain, and all have preferences.


----------



## TXTrini (Oct 2, 2013)

ArthurGPym said:


> From what I have read they are not breeding like rabbits. Not in the US, and definitely not in Europe or China. Africa and parts of Central and South America still have good 3+ birthrates for couples, but everywhere else is 2 kids and under, not enough for humanity to sustain the current level of population over the next couple of centuries. Again, I'm not saying that this is a bad thing for us, but for the Earth of the 23rd Century beyond we could see the world population cut in half. Again, if you are an avid environmentalist aor a misanthrope who believes all evils on earth originate from humans, then this will be good news. It's all a matter of perspective.


I am an avid environmentalist somewhat of a misanthrope, yes, but I don't hate anyone. I guess I simply don't see why it's a bad thing if population levels naturally decline, especially if it means a better quality of life for everyone and the ability for real progress as a society and species. Most people who want to get married and have children do anyway, one way or another. 

Mind you; I'm not advocating against people having and enjoying families as large as they want, provided they can take care of them. It just seems primitive if the entire focus of human life and legacy is to replace oneself arbitrarily for the sake of it or due to "oopsies", and not because someone truly desires and does their best for their family. 

So, if you don't mind indulging my curiosity, why do you think it's vital to sustain the current level of population? I apologize if this topic is too much of a departure from your original question, but you brought up the need to increase population levels, so I'd love to hear your perspective.


----------



## ArthurGPym (Jun 28, 2021)

TXTrini said:


> I am an avid environmentalist somewhat of a misanthrope, yes, but I don't hate anyone. I guess I simply don't see why it's a bad thing if population levels naturally decline, especially if it means a better quality of life for everyone and the ability for real progress as a society and species. Most people who want to get married and have children do anyway, one way or another.
> 
> Mind you; I'm not advocating against people having and enjoying families as large as they want, provided they can take care of them. It just seems primitive if the entire focus of human life and legacy is to replace oneself arbitrarily for the sake of it or due to "oopsies", and not because someone truly desires and does their best for their family.
> 
> So, if you don't mind indulging my curiosity, why do you think it's vital to sustain the current level of population? I apologize if this topic is too much of a departure from your original question, but you brought up the need to increase population levels, so I'd love to hear your perspective.


I haven't made up my mind if it is a bad thing or not. I'm sort of in the same headspace you are at, but what I can see happening is the way demographics will change. If you lose a large part of the population in one portion of the world, as we are doing in Europe, then emigration from another portion of the world where overcrowding is rampant into that depopulated region is going to occur. Europe in a couple of centuries may no longer be the seat of Caucasian populations, but rather a majority of Asian, Middle Eastern and African peoples. Again, not saying this is a bad thing. I just think it is interesting. 

The reason I started this thread was to understand if there is any levelling of the playing field for men who may not be as handsome or Alpha as most women would prefer, and I also wonder why both men and women seem to be eschewing marriage altogether, especially Millennials. The population was a tangent I got lost on. My brain doesn't work linear.


----------



## RandomDude (Dec 18, 2010)

ArthurGPym said:


> I haven't made up my mind if it is a bad thing or not. I'm sort of in the same headspace you are at, but what I can see happening is the way demographics will change. If you lose a large part of the population in one portion of the world, as we are doing in Europe, then emigration from another portion of the world where overcrowding is rampant into that depopulated region is going to occur. Europe in a couple of centuries may no longer be the seat of Caucasian populations, but rather a majority of Asian, Middle Eastern and African peoples. Again, not saying this is a bad thing. I just think it is interesting.
> 
> The reason I started this thread was to understand if there is any levelling of the playing field for men who may not be as handsome or Alpha as most women would prefer, and I also wonder why both men and women seem to be eschewing marriage altogether, especially Millennials. The population was a tangent I got lost on. My brain doesn't work linear.


Europe has been a melting pot since the dawn of time as much as some would like to deny (or use against each other)  
Still I see over-immigration as a bad thing and I'm not even European, well not fully, but I reckon each culture needs its own motherland to grow and be nurtured. 

If I go to France I want to experience French culture thank you very much!


----------



## TXTrini (Oct 2, 2013)

ArthurGPym said:


> I haven't made up my mind if it is a bad thing or not. I'm sort of in the same headspace you are at, but what I can see happening is the way demographics will change. If you lose a large part of the population in one portion of the world, as we are doing in Europe, then emigration from another portion of the world where overcrowding is rampant into that depopulated region is going to occur. Europe in a couple of centuries may no longer be the seat of Caucasian populations, but rather a majority of Asian, Middle Eastern and African peoples. Again, not saying this is a bad thing. I just think it is interesting.
> 
> The reason I started this thread was to understand if there is any levelling of the playing field for men who may not be as handsome or Alpha as most women would prefer, and I also wonder why both men and women seem to be eschewing marriage altogether, especially Millennials. The population was a tangent I got lost on. My brain doesn't work linear.


Well, it's sort of a conundrum, isn't it? I honestly don't know either, who can truly say? Ha! My brain isn't particularly linear either, I love to think about this kind of stuff though. As an avid sci-fi fan, I loved to think about how we'd progress to a Star Trek-type society. Then, thinking some more, I don't know how we'd get there, it would require no borders, and require people to put species above tribe, I don't think that's realistic at all. So there goes that pipe dream!

You're quite right about that, but I don't think encouraged immigration is entirely in response to people not having children. It seems almost like a punishment to allow mass immigration of unskilled people to keep the native population"in their place" so to speak by suppressing wages. Look at how many people struggle to earn a living, and provide for their families. It's a slap in their faces to import cheap labor, yet we need them to. I honestly don't have a good answer for you there, but it's interesting to think about for sure.

How is the playing field not level though? People of all levels of attractiveness couple up all the time, fall in love, marry and have children. The only complaints I see are when some complain about the opposite sex's standards (whatever they may be) eliminating them from their selection pool. Maybe the men who feel disenfranchised could up their value proposition or ply their wares in a different market. Isn't that what a lot of men do and threaten "soiled Western women" with all the time? Mind you, I'm not saying some Western women aren't spoiled, just that all talk and no action makes Jack an unhappy boy.

I think young people on the whole don't see marriage as worth it anymore because it hurts them financially one way or the other and it's so hard to recover when your former BFF in the world screws you over. How can you feel, clothe and care for children if you can barely do that for yourself, you know? It seems irresponsible to park your woes on someone else's doorstep to solve, so, they just give up or resign themselves to their lot. Not everyone is lucky enough to do well, and it's even harder in this economy.


----------



## RandomDude (Dec 18, 2010)

TXTrini said:


> Well, it's sort of a conundrum, isn't it? I honestly don't know either, who can truly say? Ha! My brain isn't particularly linear either, I love to think about this kind of stuff though. As an avid sci-fi fan, I loved to think about how we'd progress to a Star Trek-type society. Then, thinking some more, I don't know how we'd get there, it would require no borders, and require people to put species above tribe, I don't think that's realistic at all. So there goes that pipe dream!


You see Star Trek? I see Starship Troopers. We are already there propaganda-wise lol.
As for species above tribe, if we did have an interstellar enemy, maybe.

"To ensure that human civilisation, not insect, dominates this galaxy, now and ALWAYS!"
🙋‍♂️🙋‍♂️🙋‍♂️🙋‍♂️


----------



## ConanHub (Aug 9, 2013)

Well this thread took an interesting turn.😁


----------



## ConanHub (Aug 9, 2013)

TXTrini said:


> Well, it's sort of a conundrum, isn't it? I honestly don't know either, who can truly say? Ha! My brain isn't particularly linear either, I love to think about this kind of stuff though. As an avid sci-fi fan, I loved to think about how we'd progress to a Star Trek-type society. Then, thinking some more, I don't know how we'd get there, it would require no borders, and require people to put species above tribe, I don't think that's realistic at all. So there goes that pipe dream!
> 
> You're quite right about that, but I don't think encouraged immigration is entirely in response to people not having children. It seems almost like a punishment to allow mass immigration of unskilled people to keep the native population"in their place" so to speak by suppressing wages. Look at how many people struggle to earn a living, and provide for their families. It's a slap in their faces to import cheap labor, yet we need them to. I honestly don't have a good answer for you there, but it's interesting to think about for sure.
> 
> ...


Hopefully productive men and those keeping infrastructure up as well as defending countries will continue to reproduce.

Men who are designated drones don't really have anything to work or fight for.

Working really hard and/or sacrificing your life so other men's children can be safe and secure while you are denied pretty much fails to inspire.

That's a bit dystopian but a possibility?


----------



## TXTrini (Oct 2, 2013)

ConanHub said:


> Hopefully productive men and those keeping infrastructure up as well as defending countries will continue to reproduce.
> 
> Men who are designated drones don't really have anything to work or fight for.
> 
> ...


The productive men tend to be married and reproduce though.


----------



## RandomDude (Dec 18, 2010)

Err, that's not how it works though. People just breed. Regardless of what they contribute to society. Sometimes what they breed are monsters who take your loved ones away from you and others.

Would be nice if women are only attracted to the good boys huh? 😅


----------



## TXTrini (Oct 2, 2013)

RandomDude said:


> Err, that's not how it works though. People just breed. Regardless of what they contribute to society. Sometimes what they breed are monsters who take your loved ones away from you and others.
> 
> Would be nice if women are only attracted to the good boys huh? 😅


Women are, though. Apparently, the ones that are aren't good enough. So... sucks to be them?

ETA. What constitutes a good man? Who's to say every one of them is?


----------



## ConanHub (Aug 9, 2013)

TXTrini said:


> The productive men tend to be married and reproduce though.


It gave me an idea for a story though.🙂


----------



## ConanHub (Aug 9, 2013)

RandomDude said:


> Err, that's not how it works though. People just breed. Regardless of what they contribute to society. Sometimes what they breed are monsters who take your loved ones away from you and others.
> 
> Would be nice if women are only attracted to the good boys huh? 😅


Men who are potentially very dangerous are attractive to women. How they choose to behave is a toss up.


----------



## RebuildingMe (Aug 18, 2019)

Anastasia6 said:


> Sure if you are a 7 trying for a 9 then you can certainly find ones who use wallet to even the score. But just remember when those are the women you choose to date... you can't really be surprised when later a larger wallet or similar wallet better looking is more attractive to them.
> 
> I'm talking quality. I think if you want a quality relationship you should look for partners who aren't bumping up your score because of money.
> 
> ...


I never said I was looking for or was even deserving of a 9. Men don't play the hypergamy game, for the most part. If I'm a 7, I'll aim for 7's. My issue is when a fatty 5 thinks she is entitled to or deserves a 9 and won't even give a fellow 5 a second thought.

There's not a chance in hell I'd let any chick fleece me for my money. Please refer to your other thread and my short time spent in bandiland.


----------



## RebuildingMe (Aug 18, 2019)

CraigBesuden said:


> In rating yourself, are you comparing yourself to other guys in your mid-50s or to the entire pool of guys?
> 
> I think just looks-wise, if the average 25 year old guy is a 5, then the average guy in his mid-50s would be…. lower.


Apples to apples. I'm comparing myself to other men in my age group. I'm not competing with guys half my age and likewise, they couldn't compete with me on other levels.


----------



## ConanHub (Aug 9, 2013)

Just make sure you're not a fake "prize" like Akademiks gentleman. LoL!


----------



## RebuildingMe (Aug 18, 2019)

ConanHub said:


> I don't employ the scale personally.


Says two happily married people


----------



## RebuildingMe (Aug 18, 2019)

ArthurGPym said:


> Not at all. I'm average. I have dated women who were beautiful and some "plain" women too. I have been reading a lot about depopulation trends facing humanity over the next 100 years and am wondering why increasing numbers of men are not marrying. I understand that some men just refuse to marry because of fear of divorce and the cost to them if their marriage fails. But I also wonder if the standards of women have grown so high as to alienate most of the men who fall in the middle range


Brother, a while back there was a female poster who had over *20 boxes* that needed to be checked. No joke.


----------



## RandomDude (Dec 18, 2010)

RebuildingMe said:


> I never said I was looking for or was even deserving of a 9. Men don't play the hypergamy game, for the most part. If I'm a 7, I'll aim for 7's. My issue is when a fatty 5 thinks she is entitled to or deserves a 9 and won't even give a fellow 5 a second thought.
> 
> There's not a chance in hell I'd let any chick fleece me for my money. Please refer to your other thread and my short time spent in bandiland.


Huh? I score 9s but it's subjective, she could be someone's 5. And hell my 5s have been their 9s or 10s. Not everyone is universally attractive, some are though. 
So I'm gonna hit on the 9s all I like lol

Besides, women are in so many colors, features, shapes and sizes all 0-10 ratings are on an individual subjective scale based on preference rather than actual level of attractiveness.


----------



## ConanHub (Aug 9, 2013)

RebuildingMe said:


> Says two happily married people


I never have. I either found someone attractive to differing degrees or I didn't.

Fortunately for everyone involved with me, I find a pretty wide range attractive and they feel that way back.😉


----------



## RebuildingMe (Aug 18, 2019)

ArthurGPym said:


> From what I have read they are not breeding like rabbits. Not in the US, and definitely not in Europe or China. Africa and parts of Central and South America still have good 3+ birthrates for couples, but everywhere else is 2 kids and under, not enough for humanity to sustain the current level of population over the next couple of centuries. Again, I'm not saying that this is a bad thing for us, but for the Earth of the 23rd Century beyond we could see the world population cut in half. Again, if you are an avid environmentalist aor a misanthrope who believes all evils on earth originate from humans, then this will be good news. It's all a matter of perspective.


I bread about 5 times too many. Like a litter of puppies.


----------



## RebuildingMe (Aug 18, 2019)

RandomDude said:


> Huh? I score 9s but it's subjective, she could be someone's 5. And hell my 5s have been their 9s or 10s. Not everyone is universally attractive, some are though.
> So I'm gonna hit on the 9s all I like lol
> 
> Besides, women are in so many colors, features, shapes and sizes all 0-10 ratings are on an individual subjective scale based on preference rather than actual level of attractiveness.


When less then 5% of the population is truly attractive (9/10), targeting that bucket is a waste of time and energy for me.


----------



## RandomDude (Dec 18, 2010)

Also, as for fatties with hot 9s










THICC is a thing. Besides, some men REALLY DO NEED the cushion for the pushion.

Has the 21st century not revealed how subjective everything is?


----------



## RebuildingMe (Aug 18, 2019)

RandomDude said:


> Also, as for fatties with hot 9s
> 
> View attachment 92831
> 
> ...


He's probably paying her $20/hour 

By the way, he ain't no 9.

Hypergamy. She probably thinks she can actually bed him.


----------



## RandomDude (Dec 18, 2010)

@ConanHub

Why so surprised Conan? From what I've noticed that's quite the average suburban couple.



RebuildingMe said:


> He's probably paying her $20/hour
> 
> By the way, he ain't no 9.


You too? Lol what? I do not believe American suburban families look any different than Australian ones


----------



## ConanHub (Aug 9, 2013)

RandomDude said:


> @ConanHub
> 
> Why so surprised Conan? From what I've noticed that's quite the average suburban couple.


Really??


----------



## RandomDude (Dec 18, 2010)

ConanHub said:


> Really??


Depends which suburb I guess, but yes I wouldn't bat an eye seeing tall, handsome and fit men with curvy women over here. People hook up and find each other. Like hell my ex was 14 years younger than me so what the hell.

Anyway, treading on dangerous ground here! I can feel the laser dots on the back of our heads! Must stop this discussion! 😅


----------



## Lila (May 30, 2014)

RandomDude said:


> Also, as for fatties with hot 9s
> 
> View attachment 92831
> 
> ...


Both my ex husband (46) and my current bf (51) are lifelong gym rats. They are in phenomenal physical shape, probably better than men half their age. 

I'm thick and have been so for the vast majority of my adult life (not as big as the lady in your pic but definitely curvy). 

I asked my ex husband (way back when we were married) and my bf what was their attraction to my body type. Both said it was the cushion 🤣. 

I ❤ muscular chubby chasers.


----------



## gameopoly5 (5 mo ago)

SCDad01 said:


> I'm in my mid 50's, so we have to throw in money and personality since we need all the help we can get...lol.
> 
> But seriously, financial security is definitely something women my age look for...much moreso than when I was in my 30's and 40's. I think I'm a 7 without the added extras. I have no problem dating. It's finding chemistry and all the other tangibles that makes it hard. That's why I said 9/10 looks aren't as important for me anymore.


A women claiming to be a 7 is a cop out. 7 has to be taken out of the equation.
It has to be a 1 to 6 or an 8 to 10.
A 1 would be UGLY, 4 to 5 average at best leading up to a 6 that is very slightly above average. 8 to 10 we`re looking at model status.
I am not saying older women can`t be attractive, but being realistic women in their 50s cannot be just below model status or model status. In-fact it is said, both men and women 50 and above become invisible to younger people of the opposite sex.
Also the women who claim to be a 6 or 8 to10, if assessed when walking out of a shower, naked and no make up. most will fall well below those figures.
As regards money, that`s a female thing, because rarely will men include money as part of their attraction to women, looks and personality, yes.


----------



## RandomDude (Dec 18, 2010)

Lila said:


> Both my ex husband (46) and my current bf (51) are lifelong gym rats. They are in phenomenal physical shape, probably better than men half their age.
> 
> I'm thick and have been so for the vast majority of my adult life (not as big as the lady in your pic but definitely curvy).
> 
> ...


Haha exactly!


----------



## ConanHub (Aug 9, 2013)

gameopoly5 said:


> Fun-fact it is said, both men and women 50 and above become invisible to younger people of the opposite sex.


LoL! Speak for yourself brother.😋

Mrs. Conan got hit on several times through her fifties by men in their thirties and even late twenties.

I got hit on last year by a 22 year old.


----------



## gameopoly5 (5 mo ago)




----------



## Not (Jun 12, 2017)

gameopoly5 said:


> A women claiming to be a 7 is a cop out. 7 has to be taken out of the equation.
> It has to be a 1 to 6 or an 8 to 10.
> A 1 would be UGLY, 4 to 5 average at best leading up to a 6 that is very slightly above average. 8 to 10 we`re looking at model status.
> I am not saying older women can`t be attractive, but being realistic women in their 50s cannot be just below model status or model status. In-fact it is said, both men and women 50 and above become invisible to younger people of the opposite sex.
> ...


Not true. This was just a few month ago on a dating app. It all depends on what you’re into and it isn’t going to be just body type.


----------



## CraigBesuden (Jun 20, 2019)

The current environment has many women pricing themselves put of the marriage market. They have a college degree and want a man who has one, too (or better), but the colleges are 60-40 female now. She makes $120,000 and wants a guy who makes $150,000, but those guys aren’t looking for a woman who makes a lot of money.

On paper, the quality of available women strengthens as they age while the pool of men weakens. The more intelligent a man is, the more he will marry and have kids; for women, it’s the opposite. 

Hopefully, at some point, women will change their expectations and accept that if she brings more traditionally male qualities to the relationship, it’s okay if he brings less and he brings more traditionally female qualities.


----------



## BecauseSheWeeps (9 mo ago)

ArthurGPym said:


> Question for the ladies:
> 
> If you are single and meet a man who doesn't check all your boxes in looks or physicality, but his personality is mazing and the chemistry between the two of you is electric, can the chemistry override attractiveness in the long run? In other words, can you stay interested in a man based off the energy alone for the long term?


Yes. I have absolutely been completely fine and content with a man that didn't check off all boxes for me in physical attraction. My husband doesn't entirely check off all boxes for me in physical attraction, tbh. But I know that I'm not perfect either so I try to not be too shallow. I've dated men that were 100% physically attractive for me and their personality sucked, so entirely bad that I just couldn't do it. I am with my husband because we can spend countless nights laughing, over the dumbest crap that nobody else will even understand or catch on to. The good, definitely outweighs the bad with this one.


----------



## Affaircare (Jan 11, 2010)

ArthurGPym said:


> Question for the ladies:
> 
> If you are single and meet a man who doesn't check all your boxes in looks or physicality, but his personality is mazing and the chemistry between the two of you is electric, can the chemistry override attractiveness in the long run? In other words, can you stay interested in a man based off the energy alone for the long term?


Yep. 

For me, if the personality and chemistry is AMAZING...then I feel attraction, not the other way round. 

So if a gentleman were smart, funny, kind, energetic, playful, thoughtful, gentle, interesting, mature, honest & open, affectionate, and did I mention able to laugh? ... I would be attracted to who the guy is and then see his physical being as "attractive." 

If he were a complete stud of physical perfection, but he was unintelligent, had no sense of humor, was unkind, was rough and sarcastic in a biting way, was thoughtless, dull and boring, immature, deceptive, mechanical, and just unable to laugh... I don't care, he'd be ugly to me. Not only would there not be attraction--there would be some level of repulsion! 

So yep, I can stay interested in a man based on the energy alone for the long term. It's just how I see people. When I'm attracted to their heart--their inner being--then I am attracted to them physically. (shrug)


----------



## Openminded (Feb 21, 2013)

Affaircare said:


> Yep.
> 
> For me, if the personality and chemistry is AMAZING...then I feel attraction, not the other way round.
> 
> ...


One hundred percent agree. That’s exactly how I am as well (but you said it much better than I was about to).


----------



## TXTrini (Oct 2, 2013)

CraigBesuden said:


> The current environment has many women pricing themselves put of the marriage market. They have a college degree and want a man who has one, too (or better), but the colleges are 60-40 female now. She makes $120,000 and wants a guy who makes $150,000, but those guys aren’t looking for a woman who makes a lot of money.
> 
> On paper, the quality of available women strengthens as they age while the pool of men weakens. The more intelligent a man is, the more he will marry and have kids; for women, it’s the opposite.
> 
> *Hopefully, at some point, women will change their expectations and accept that if she brings more traditionally male qualities to the relationship, it’s okay if he brings less and he brings more traditionally female qualities.*


Then they'll miss out too; some already are if they're too inflexible. but that's their choice. It's not like it's anything new; as soon as women had access to education as much as 100 years ago, some choice to remain single and never marry or have families. You're assuming every woman wants to marry and have children, which is totally not the case. 

More women are choosing not to have children, married or single. People who still want to marry and have children do, so nothing stopping anyone. The only expectations I could see reasonably changing would be the financial and education requirements, but not many women, including well-off women are ok taking care of a man; it's emasculating. 

I had a bird's eye view into that dynamic with my ex-brother-in-law and his wife. She was a doctor; he was a stay-at-home dad even though he was very well-educated. But she treated him very disrespectfully in front of us and he just took it. I used to feel bad for him, but that was his choice. How many men do you think would sign up for that? Especially if it ended up with their wives freezing them out, cause I can't imagine she'd be sexually attracted to a man who accepted that kind of treatment.


----------



## ArthurGPym (Jun 28, 2021)

RandomDude said:


> @ConanHub
> 
> Why so surprised Conan? From what I've noticed that's quite the average suburban couple.
> 
> ...


There cannot be any obese people in Oz. You guys live a much healthier lifestyle there don't you?


----------



## ArthurGPym (Jun 28, 2021)

Tiddytok5 said:


> No it can't. It will eventually cause problems and cause the person who isn't attracted ..to go involve themselves with someone visually appealing.
> 
> We all need to be visually stimulated firstly before wanting to proceed further...
> 
> ...


I'm a dude. 

No one's answer bothers me. I am actually asking the question for my own education and edification. I want to understand women better.


----------



## Not (Jun 12, 2017)

TXTrini said:


> Then they'll miss out too; some already are if they're too inflexible. but that's their choice. It's not like it's anything new; as soon as women had access to education as much as 100 years ago, some choice to remain single and never marry or have families. You're assuming every woman wants to marry and have children, which is totally not the case.
> 
> More women are choosing not to have children, married or single. People who still want to marry and have children do, so nothing stopping anyone. The only expectations I could see reasonably changing would be the financial and education requirements, but not many women, including well-off women are ok taking care of a man; it's emasculating.
> 
> *I had a bird's eye view into that dynamic with my ex-brother-in-law and his wife. She was a doctor; he was a stay-at-home dad even though he was very well-educated. But she treated him very disrespectfully in front of us and he just took it. I used to feel bad for him, but that was his choice. How many men do you think would sign up for that? Especially if it ended up with their wives freezing them out, cause I can't imagine she'd be sexually attracted to a man who accepted that kind of treatment.*


This isn't directed to you personally Trini, just the topic you touched upon.

To the bolded. It's ironic because so many men do the same thing to SAHM's. The full time worker/stay-at-home parent situation seems to be loaded with potential trouble no matter the gender roles. A demeaning attitude toward the parent that stays at home seems to be par for the course, no matter who works.

As a single person on the market for a new partner I will say for certain I will never put myself in that position again. Been there and done that and have years and years of memories of being put down for staying at home, even though I always worked part time. 

I'm not sure I believe men who stay at home are any worse off than women who stay at home. And in my case, due to his lack of respect for my role in our life, I lost attraction for him not only as a mate but as a human being. I can see a male stay at home parent losing respect and attraction for his wife if she's demeaning him for filling a role they obviously agreed to in the first place. It seems to be more a situation of one-upmanship really, with the bread winner needing to feel superior. Why else the put downs?

If the SAHD is lazy louse who accepts the put downs then yes, he's not a very attractive mate but otherwise, in general, the working partner has no business looking down on the parent who stays at home.


----------



## TXTrini (Oct 2, 2013)

Not said:


> This isn't directed to you personally Trini, just the topic you touched upon.
> 
> To the bolded. It's ironic because so many men do the same thing to SAHM's. The full time worker/stay-at-home parent situation seems to be loaded with potential trouble no matter the gender roles. A demeaning attitude toward the parent that stays at home seems to be par for the course, no matter who works.
> 
> ...


He wasn't lazy at all, he did everything at home. But he always looked so downtrodden, so I couldn't think he was too happy.


----------



## DownByTheRiver (Jul 2, 2020)

Tiddytok5 said:


> No it can't. It will eventually cause problems and cause the person who isn't attracted ..to go involve themselves with someone visually appealing.
> 
> We all need to be visually stimulated firstly before wanting to proceed further...
> 
> ...


The saving grace is that I think especially with women, what they find attractive often very widely depending on the woman. The men they choose are not necessarily universally attractive to other women. I didn't think any of my friends husbands were physically attractive really and I only liked one of them personality wise out of a small group of friends. A roommate of mine who was considered very attractive because she was blonde with big boobs and a sparkling personality was often attracted to men of all varieties, few of which I found attractive.

Of course there are men who I guess most women find attractive enough but that's just not always who people I've known have gone for. There is some variety of what people like or find attractive.


----------



## CraigBesuden (Jun 20, 2019)

TXTrini said:


> She was a doctor; he was a stay-at-home dad even though he was very well-educated. But she treated him very disrespectfully in front of us and he just took it. I used to feel bad for him, but that was his choice. How many men do you think would sign up for that? Especially if it ended up with their wives freezing them out, cause I can't imagine she'd be sexually attracted to a man who accepted that kind of treatment.


I only know one SAHD. I would never be a SAHD or SAHW and would never want to have one (except until the kids are old enough to go to school).

I’ve seen that dynamic before and it’s not only money behind it. Sometimes the spouse makes more and still puts up with it.


----------



## Openminded (Feb 21, 2013)

Not said:


> This isn't directed to you personally Trini, just the topic you touched upon.
> 
> To the bolded. It's ironic because so many men do the same thing to SAHM's. The full time worker/stay-at-home parent situation seems to be loaded with potential trouble no matter the gender roles. A demeaning attitude toward the parent that stays at home seems to be par for the course, no matter who works.
> 
> ...


My personal observation is that it’s who makes the most money. My husband and I started out as basically equals in our education and careers when we were young. He continued climbing the corporate ladder and I cut back some once we had a child. Over time his salary became several times more than what mine was. And his attitude reflected that. I had a full-time job and full-time care of our child, homes, cars, boat, pets, travel plans — you name it, I dealt with it. Building a second home on a lake 75 miles away and dealing with contractors on a daily basis — frequently in person? Not him. Boat gets severely damaged at the marina during a winter storm? Someone hits him head-on when he’s coming home from work? Definitely not on him to deal with insurance companies. On and on and on. In the eyes of some, money is king. I can’t even imagine his resentment if I had been a SAHM with no career. As it was he felt I should make the money he did — conveniently forgetting that someone had to do all those things that he didn’t have time to do so he could 100% focus on his career. I didn’t have that luxury. But in his eyes I had failed to live up to my career potential and that’s what mattered. Nope.


----------



## TXTrini (Oct 2, 2013)

CraigBesuden said:


> I only know one SAHD. I would never be a SAHD or SAHW and would never want to have one (except until the kids are old enough to go to school).
> 
> I’ve seen that dynamic before and it’s not only money behind it. Sometimes the spouse makes more and still puts up with it.


I was a SAHW, but started WFH after my exH lost his job and signed a non-compete agreement to get his severance. He wanted me to be one, and I was ok with it, because I had serious medical issues to deal with. Anyway, nothing seemed to make him happy, me working or not working. I decided to scale back, because when I worked full-time with overtime hours, he expected me to do everything at home and didn't even want to take care of the yard. He was too busy ****ing around. 

I'm never going to put myself at the mercy of anyone else again, I don't care how well off and nice they are; it's too risky.


----------



## ConanHub (Aug 9, 2013)

Not said:


> This isn't directed to you personally Trini, just the topic you touched upon.
> 
> To the bolded. It's ironic because so many men do the same thing to SAHM's. The full time worker/stay-at-home parent situation seems to be loaded with potential trouble no matter the gender roles. A demeaning attitude toward the parent that stays at home seems to be par for the course, no matter who works.
> 
> ...


Well I hope it isn't a widespread thing to disrespect Sahm's. Mrs. Conan actually ruled our home. We would have been running around naked, throwing plates at each other without her.😋

There was one time where she was working and I wasn't for about 6 months.

She came home to dinner, a hot bath and massage every night.

She managed to not do anything but appreciate me though and disrespect would have been met with a spankin, stay at home dad or not.😉


----------



## ConanHub (Aug 9, 2013)

TXTrini said:


> He wasn't lazy at all, he did everything at home. But he always looked so downtrodden, so I couldn't think he was too happy.


He needed to take Conan's spankin 101 course.😉


----------



## RandomDude (Dec 18, 2010)

ArthurGPym said:


> There cannot be any obese people in Oz. You guys live a much healthier lifestyle there don't you?


Hahahahahahaha  
Apparently not:


----------



## TXTrini (Oct 2, 2013)

ConanHub said:


> He needed to take Conan's spankin 101 course.😉


Ha! If anyone's getting spanked, it's probably him.


----------



## CraigBesuden (Jun 20, 2019)

Openminded said:


> My personal observation is that it’s who makes the most money.


It sounds like he needed to hire a housekeeper and a personal assistant with that money.


----------



## Openminded (Feb 21, 2013)

TXTrini said:


> I was a SAHW, but started WFH after my exH lost his job and signed a non-compete agreement to get his severance. He wanted me to be one, and I was ok with it, because I had serious medical issues to deal with. Anyway, nothing seemed to make him happy, me working or not working. I decided to scale back, because when I worked full-time with overtime hours, he expected me to do everything at home and didn't even want to take care of the yard. He was too busy ****ing around.
> 
> I'm never going to put myself at the mercy of anyone else again, I don't care how well off and nice they are; it's too risky.


I totally agree with that. It can be a huge risk for many and not IMO worth it. Because I had to cut back on my career to deal with everything else in our lives and didn’t continue to advance as my husband did, he saw me as not equal. No way I would ever allow that to happen again.


----------



## ArthurGPym (Jun 28, 2021)

RandomDude said:


> Hahahahahahaha
> Apparently not:
> 
> View attachment 92966


Whoah! That surprises me. When I went to Bondi Beach back in 2002 or so, I did not see one single fat person. In fact, the beach was full of some of the most jacked, beautiful people I've ever seen.


----------



## ConanHub (Aug 9, 2013)

ArthurGPym said:


> Whoah! That surprises me. When I went to Bondi Beach back in 2002 or so, I did not see one single fat person. In fact, the beach was full of some of the most jacked, beautiful people I've ever seen.


They hide the fat ones in the bushes.😋


----------



## TXTrini (Oct 2, 2013)

Openminded said:


> I totally agree with that. It can be a huge risk for many and not IMO worth it. Because I had to cut back on my career to deal with everything else in our lives and didn’t continue to advance as my husband did, he saw me as not equal. No way I would ever allow that to happen again.


Yes, it is. Mind you, I cook at a chef-level, and he came home to homemade meals, with stuff in the freezer I packed for times I wasn't up to cooking. I did all the bill paying, purchasing, etc. I ran a tight ship on a budget, there were no unplanned shopping trips or running out of toilet paper. I hosted or cooked and took food to family holidays, when family were sick, etc. It's not like I was sitting around eating bon-bons watching TV. 

I was more educated and better looking than him, which he felt inferior about, even though I never rubbed it in his face. I know it bothered him, because he'd thrown comments for me, but never explain things. 

I think the modern trend of people meeting as equals, and having to compromise from the start is probably the most egalitarian way to go now. I don't know why I'm surprised that people still think money buys power and they should get more (better treatment, a "better" spouse) because they have it. Heck, you see some guys saying their financial stability is part of their SMV 😂... to golddiggers... suuuuure.


----------



## ArthurGPym (Jun 28, 2021)

ConanHub said:


> They hide the fat ones in the bushes.😋


Or they eat them, on toast with Vegemite.


----------



## Openminded (Feb 21, 2013)

CraigBesuden said:


> It sounds like he needed to hire a housekeeper and a personal assistant with that money.


I did have cleaning help whenever I felt it was necessary and I also hired whatever other help I needed if something was beyond my abilities or I just didn’t have time to deal with it. A personal assistant would definitely have been helpful.

PS

And I chose to only have one child. No way I could have done all that I did if I had had more children.


----------



## RandomDude (Dec 18, 2010)

ArthurGPym said:


> Whoah! That surprises me. When I went to Bondi Beach back in 2002 or so, I did not see one single fat person. In fact, the beach was full of some of the most jacked, beautiful people I've ever seen.


Hahaha of course, it's Bondi! It's full of youngsters surfies and bimbos. It's also a puny little beach surrounded by cliffs so you have lots and lots of people in a tiny space.
I don't even know why the hell it's so famous. First of all, it's a B to get there, parking is a B, crowds are a B, food there is a B  

Meh, I prefer the open white beaches of Western Australia that stretch for miles:


----------



## RandomDude (Dec 18, 2010)

ConanHub said:


> They hide the fat ones in the bushes.😋





ArthurGPym said:


> Or they eat them, on toast with Vegemite.


ROFL


----------



## Not (Jun 12, 2017)

Openminded said:


> My personal observation is that it’s who makes the most money. My husband and I started out as basically equals in our education and careers when we were young. He continued climbing the corporate ladder and I cut back some once we had a child. Over time his salary became several times more than what mine was. And his attitude reflected that. I had a full-time job and full-time care of our child, homes, cars, boat, pets, travel plans — you name it, I dealt with it. Building a second home on a lake 75 miles away and dealing with contractors on a daily basis — frequently in person? Not him. Boat gets severely damaged at the marina during a winter storm? Someone hits him head-on when he’s coming home from work? Definitely not on him to deal with insurance companies. On and on and on. In the eyes of some, money is king. I can’t even imagine his resentment if I had been a SAHM with no career. As it was he felt I should make the money he did — conveniently forgetting that someone had to do all those things that he didn’t have time to do so he could 100% focus on his career. I didn’t have that luxury. But in his eyes I had failed to live up to my career potential and that’s what mattered. Nope.


I think so too. I wasn’t producing financially what he was so therefore my value was lower. 

I can see women doing this as well. It’s not a gender thing, it’s a human thing. Jerks are everywhere.


----------



## TXTrini (Oct 2, 2013)

Btw, women deemed "too ugly" have been dealing with this forever. Check out this video on pretty privilege.

I guess it's just men's turn to deal with it since everyone has continuously higher expectations. Think about when you've gone to a museum and seen Renaissance paintings. Would you find Mona Lisa and her ilk hot stuff? I've seen pictures of people back in the day and thought they were less attractive than we are today, so I can see the bias.


----------



## Not (Jun 12, 2017)

TXTrini said:


> He wasn't lazy at all, he did everything at home. But he always looked so downtrodden, so I couldn't think he was too happy.


That was me.


----------



## Not (Jun 12, 2017)

ConanHub said:


> Well I hope it isn't a widespread thing to disrespect Sahm's. Mrs. Conan actually ruled our home. We would have been running around naked, throwing plates at each other without her.😋
> 
> There was one time where she was working and I wasn't for about 6 months.
> 
> ...


And that’s the way it should be. Equal partners supporting each other in appreciation.


----------



## Lila (May 30, 2014)

Today is Thursday, a great night to go sit at the bar of my favorite restaurant for dinner. I call Thursdays, first meeting date night. Great for people watching. 

I saw the Barbies and Kens doing their thing, but also very normal people looking at each other like they were each other's last meal. Proof that for every pot there is a lid.


----------



## Corgi Mum (10 mo ago)

lifeistooshort said:


> Well attractiveness is a function of chemistry. I doubt I'm going to have chemistry with a guy I find unattractive so chemistry implies a certain level of attractive in my eyes.


^^^ this

I've met jaw-droppingly gorgeous men who opened their mouths and the attraction nose-dived. Or I've learned something so unappealing about their character that I no longer saw them as attractive. But never "chemistry" with a man that I've never found attractive.


----------



## ArthurGPym (Jun 28, 2021)

RandomDude said:


> Hahaha of course, it's Bondi! It's full of youngsters surfies and bimbos. It's also a puny little beach surrounded by cliffs so you have lots and lots of people in a tiny space.
> I don't even know why the hell it's so famous. First of all, it's a B to get there, parking is a B, crowds are a B, food there is a B
> 
> Meh, I prefer the open white beaches of Western Australia that stretch for miles:
> ...


It's a pretty beach. The surfing wasn't as good as people made it out to be. I had to go over to Bronte to catch some good curls. Surfing in Oz was fun, except for the Ossie surfers calling me "Seppo". That wasn't very nice. F*ckers.


----------



## RandomDude (Dec 18, 2010)

ArthurGPym said:


> It's a pretty beach. The surfing wasn't as good as people made it out to be. I had to go over to Bronte to catch some good curls. Surfing in Oz was fun, except for the Ossie surfers calling me "Seppo". That wasn't very nice. F*ckers.


Lol when we give ppl **** or roast you or give you nicknames its a sign we like you, Seppo 😅 😋

Depends how they said it though and in what context I guess


----------



## ArthurGPym (Jun 28, 2021)

RandomDude said:


> Lol when we give ppl **** or roast you or give you nicknames its a sign we like you, Seppo 😅 😋
> 
> Depends how they said it though and in what context I guess


Yeah I know. I gave it right back to them. Great surfers. Those were the days.


----------



## RoseyPosey713 (2 mo ago)

It's the energy for me. I need chemistry and for me, it's a combination of looks and chemistry...I need all the feels, lol!


----------

