# Why Are you Considered Shallow For Having Specific Physical Preferences???



## EllisRedding

Listening to the radio on my drive to work this morning and they played the usual dating segment " We went on a date, I thought it went great, why didn't you call me back ...". The hosts called the guy on the phone, and he explained that when he saw a pic of her she looked great, but when they met for the date she was much heavier than the picture showed (not sure if an old pic or just a headshot), so that was a big turnoff. At that point 2 of the females hosts were ready to rip into him for saying that. I don't get it, are you not allowed to have specific physical characteristics that you are attracted to? I am not talking about berating or demeaning someone, but if you are not physically attracted to someone (who cares the reason) you are not physically attracted to them. Just because she may have a great personality, you should just push aside the physical aspect as if it doesn't exist  IDK, maybe it is just because we live in a society now where you have to be PC, if you are honest you are considered shallow, a dbag, etc...


----------



## LonelyinLove

You know what...you like what you like.

Just like dinner....some like seafood, some like red meat.

It's called preferences.

We all have them.


----------



## Ripper

EllisRedding said:


> At that point 2 of the *females* hosts were ready to rip into him for saying that.


First, not all women behave like this. However quite a few blow their gasket when a man mentions a women's weight as an issue. I don't know why exactly. It is personal preference after all. I have my theories but to explain them would likely incite flame wars.

Would be interesting to see if they have the same problem when a woman specify a man be a certain height or have all his hair. Be some hypocrisy on display I bet.


----------



## thatbpguy

Well, it's also 'talk radio'. Those dopes get paid to try and be entertaining. 

But like it's already been stated- we all have our personal preferences. Me, some whips and chains...


----------



## Rowan

In my experience people will typically say you are "shallow" for your preferences only if they do not personally share them. A woman might not mind a guy with a little meat on his bones. So she might think a man shallow for preferring slender women. A man might not care much about how financially well-off his lady is. So he might think a woman shallow for preferring to date men with a certain perceived income level. In reality, neither is really shallowness, but rather personal preference. 

You (the universal "you") aren't shallow for having your own preferences. But, then, neither are other people for having their own. Even if what they prefer isn't you. I think many people are somehow threatened by the notion that they don't meet another person's preference specs. And, well, frankly it's easier to dismiss someone as shallow than to be confident enough to simply recognize them as _incompatible_.


----------



## always_alone

It's not shallow to have preferences. It's shallow to care only about surface appearances, never bothering to look at the depth.

There's no obligation to be deep of course, but some people can certainly be described fairly accurately as shallow. 

Why would such people be offended by that, if it happens to be true?


----------



## Married but Happy

That was very shallow of the hosts.


----------



## Forest

Funny that he could have said her hair color was wrong, her personality was off, her teeth were crooked, she was too tall or too short, and they'd have probably left him alone.


----------



## samyeagar

Forest said:


> Funny that he could have said her hair color was wrong, her personality was off, her teeth were crooked, she was too tall or too short, and they'd have probably left him alone.


He may not have been called shallow, but I doubt they would have left them alone. It is almost reflexive human nature to empathize and support the rejected, and villainize the rejector.

I think Rowan hit on some good points above, and it basically boils down to people wanting to see a level field for themselves, and for others. That can be achieved two ways...either by building one side up, or tearing the other side down. It is usually far easier to tear one side down, which is why the rejector is usually torn to shreds with name calling and shaming, and that is most often the context of throwing the word shallow out there...a shaming tactic.


----------



## Miss Taken

Men do this as well. 

In my wilder, foolish days before meeting my spouse. My girlfriends, my sister and I got a hotel room and we were going to throw a party. We were calling up our friends, but also one of my sister's friends called one of those dating chat lines and decided to invite two of these guys over to come and drink with us. Who shows up? Not two self-described tall, dark and handsome Don Juans but two very nice but very short and overweight midgets. If that's not a catfish, I don't know what is.

Anyway, I don't understand why people lie. The dating pool might be small for some and smaller for others but honestly representing yourself will get you genuinely interested responses. To me it's a no-brainer. I have never in my life been attractive (nor attracted to) every man. It's not going to happen. On the bright side, I have also never in my life been *unattractive* to every man and quite a few times the attraction was mutual. 

Outside of that, there's a problem with people having unrealistic expectations. Whether those pertain to one's appearance or other attributes. For instance the guy wearing the quadruple XL t-shirt that dons the phrase, "No fat chicks" is probably being unrealistic about his options. But these unrealistic expectations can go beyond the physical and be attributed to things like lifestyle, habits, intelligence etc. as well. For instance, the guy that sits around all weekend playing video games and never seeing the sun might want to re-think how well the outdoorsy girl who hikes the mountains every weekend will fit into his life or how he will fit into hers.


----------



## RandomDude

I say be shallow and be proud! At least you know what you want!

It's already a problem in the dating scene when people don't have the slightest fking clue wtf they want.


----------



## thefam

always_alone said:


> It's not shallow to have preferences. It's shallow to care only about surface appearances, never bothering to look at the depth.


I started to agree with this because my H has one physical attribute that is not attractive to me but is totally acceptable (skinny legs from the knees down, even though he is a gym rat). However an overweight man would be dealbreaker for me. However now that we are in a relationship I wouldnt dream of leaving him if he got fat. Because now our relationship has truly gone deep and even if he wasn't attractive to me physically i would still love who he is on the inside and thats the real him.

That sounds so flowery but i guess its still true.


----------



## zillard

What Rowan said. 

We all have preferences. Some are more open and honest about them. Those who would call you shallow are likely those who are not as open and honest about them.

And regardless of her weight, the woman misrepresented herself. Why would I want to get to know her personality when I caught her in what amounts to a lie before we even met?


----------



## EllisRedding

zillard said:


> And regardless of her weight, the woman misrepresented herself. Why would I want to get to know her personality* when I caught her in what amounts to a lie before we even me*t?


This is an interesting point. I don't know how common this occurs with online dating. One person failed to mention she was in a wheelchair, so her date did not find out until they met for dinner (and that was the dealbreaker for him). Of course people started calling in blasting him implying that if he had been with someone for a while and something happened that resulting in them being in a wheelchair, he would just turn his back on them ... I mean, he just met this person, who failed to disclose what I would consider a rather important fact


----------



## SimplyAmorous

Rowan said:


> In my experience people will typically say you are "shallow" for your preferences only if they do not personally share them. A woman might not mind a guy with a little meat on his bones. *So she might think a man shallow for preferring slender women. A man might not care much about how financially well-off his lady is. So he might think a woman shallow for preferring to date men with a certain perceived income level. In reality, neither is really shallowness, but rather personal preference.
> 
> You (the universal "you") aren't shallow for having your own preferences. * But, then, neither are other people for having their own. Even if what they prefer isn't you. I think many people are somehow threatened by the notion that they don't meet another person's preference specs. And, well, frankly it's easier to dismiss someone as shallow than to be confident enough to simply recognize them as _incompatible_.


I am one of those women who , even a little too much huskiness is a turn off to me in a man. I like 'em thin. My husband knows if his stomach starts getting pudgy..I'd probably starve him to get it down to that nice flat sexy look... My mother married my Father when she wasn't "head over heels" with him.. she told me she thought he was "too husky" (he was never overweight) .. I guess this is in my genes or something..

In His Needs Her Needs... one of those on the list is "attractive spouse" ...it simply matters to some..













> *zillard said*:* We all have preferences. Some are more open and honest about them. Those who would call you shallow are likely those who are not as open and honest about them.*


 I agree... we have shallowness in different areas is all.. Some will not consider a man unless he makes $____, wouldn't go on a 2nd date if his car was too old..if he didn't show enough confidence... if he still lived at home over a certain age, if he used a coupon, she' turn her nose...the list goes on & on... I don't see why Looks are any different.. 

I'd happily take the coupon guy who showed up in an old pickup over a overweight man in an expensive sports car... I need to be able to look at a man from a distance. with an "up & down' and say to myself.. "mmmmm... not too bad!"... without external factors.. or it's just not going to work for me.


----------



## lifeistooshort

I see nothing wrong with preferences. I do have a problem with people who choose a partner based on surface criteria alone and then b!tch when they get a poor partner. Attractiveness is important but it's also important to consider what kind of partner you're getting. 

In this case it might have been a general lack of chemistry. If you have chemistry you can sometimes overlook some things. I don't know who wants someone who's not into them anyway.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## zillard

lifeistooshort said:


> I see nothing wrong with preferences. I do have a problem with people who choose a partner based on surface criteria alone and then b!tch when they get a poor partner. Attractiveness is important but it's also important to consider what kind of partner you're getting.
> 
> In this case it might have been a general lack of chemistry. If you have chemistry you can sometimes overlook some things. I don't know who wants someone who's not into them anyway.
> _Posted via Mobile Device_


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


----------



## EleGirl

zillard said:


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


That's funny. 

There are some interesting things about it... we could change this to talk about men and it fits very well. 

I disagree that if she's a 2=crazy and a 9/10=hot she's probably a dude... because I know a lot of very hot women who are as sane a any human can be.

Also, this is delivered by a guy is about a 4-5 on the hot scale. So he's not even in the 'fun zone' himself.


----------



## Wolf1974

zillard said:


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


Lmao unicorn zone 

That was truely great. Made my day thank you


----------



## Wolf1974

No way. We are all allowed to have preferences. People who get mad at that are the ridiculous ones. And that goes for both genders.


I don't want to date fat women. Won't do it. I lead an active lifestyle and expect that from my mate. So that's a preference and could care less if someone thinks that's shallow. 

I have been passed over before because I don't make six figures a year. So what...why get upset by that? They want to date a guy who makes more money. That's their preference and I wish them well.

No one is entitled to anything but we are all free to pursue what we desire.


----------



## always_alone

EleGirl said:


> That's funny.
> 
> There are some interesting things about it... we could change this to talk about men and it fits very well.
> 
> I disagree that if she's a 2=crazy and a 9/10=hot she's probably a dude... because I know a lot of very hot women who are as sane a any human can be.
> 
> Also, this is delivered by a guy is about a 4-5 on the hot scale. So he's not even in the 'fun zone' himself.



Yeah, except for men it's the hot/arrogant prick matrix. And I'd put that dude in the upper and far left section of the 'no go' zone. I like to call it the 'get away as fast as you can' zone.


----------



## richardsharpe

Good evening
preferences are absolutely fine, but I think they can be viewed as shallow if if they don't show any sense.

For a one time date / ONS, then go for whatever you want. 

If the plane is a continuing relationship, then I think almost all men will agree that beautiful+crazy is a lot worse than OK+not_crazy. You have a right to pick beautiful, but if you let it take precedence over crazy, then don't be surprised when things don't end well.

If you are looking for marriage, then appearance should be pretty far down the list. At 50 she is not going to be as objectively hot as at 20 - that is just the reality. If you love her, she may still be hot to YOU (as my wife is to me), but that is true of someone you love even if they were not hot to begin with .


----------



## EllisRedding

richardsharpe said:


> If you are looking for marriage, then appearance should be pretty far down the list. At 50 she is not going to be as objectively hot as at 20 - that is just the reality. If you love her, she may still be hot to YOU (as my wife is to me), but that is true of someone you love even if they were not hot to begin with .


I actually think appearance should be right up there with many other qualities. At least IMO part of having a meaningful/happy relationship is the physical attraction aspect. I am definitely not saying that is all that matters, but it is a balance of finding someone who has the qualities you are attracted to both inside and out.


----------



## lifeistooshort

richardsharpe said:


> Good evening
> preferences are absolutely fine, but I think they can be viewed as shallow if if they don't show any sense.
> 
> For a one time date / ONS, then go for whatever you want.
> 
> If the plane is a continuing relationship, then I think almost all men will agree that beautiful+crazy is a lot worse than OK+not_crazy. You have a right to pick beautiful, but if you let it take precedence over crazy, then don't be surprised when things don't end well.
> 
> If you are looking for marriage, then appearance should be pretty far down the list. At 50 she is not going to be as objectively hot as at 20 - that is just the reality. If you love her, she may still be hot to YOU (as my wife is to me), but that is true of someone you love even if they were not hot to begin with .




Good points. Also remember that while she won't be as objectively hot at 50 as she was at 20 neither will you. You can pull up studies that suggest men tend to rate themselves higher on the attractive scale then women will rate them, and the opposite is true of women. They will rate themselves lower then men would rate them.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## tech-novelist

zillard said:


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


You know how to tell that you've been spending too much time thinking about these issues?

When you know what video that is, just by the first couple of comments in the thread where it was posted.


----------



## EleGirl

always_alone said:


> Yeah, except for men it's the hot/arrogant prick matrix. And I'd put that dude in the upper and far left section of the 'no go' zone. I like to call it the 'get away as fast as you can' zone.


To me arrogant=crazy.


----------



## Somanylemons

I think there are a few issues here. 

I agree that it's perfectly OK to have preferences . . . but I think it's sometimes worth challenging them. For example I've seen many women flat out refuse to date men who are shorter then they are. I understand the preference but I don't think it's a wise one. How many women have dismissed the perfect man for them because he was too short?

Also there is the issue that Miss Taken mentioned. I've known a few men who refused to date anyone who they didn't consider to be a 'hot chick'. Unfortunately they were far from perfect specimens themselves and couldn't understand why they were still single! Nobody wants to date someone they don't find attractive but we all need a dose of realism from time to time.


----------



## RandomDude

The problem with lowering your physical standards is the fact that when you're not sexually attracted at all you'll just end up doing them a dis-service when there are others who will. Hence I endorse being "shallow", all the while knowing the simple fact that beauty always remains in the eye of the beholder.


----------



## morituri

Believe it or not, not all men want nor trust the "hot chick". Maybe a certain age range of men (probably 20-29) will but it wouldn't surprise me that, average wise, the older the man, the lesser the desire or importance for the beauty preference in a woman.


----------



## lifeistooshort

morituri said:


> Believe it or not, not all men want nor trust the "hot chick". Maybe a certain age range of men (probably 20-29) will but it wouldn't surprise me that, average wise, the older the man, the lesser the desire or importance for the beauty preference in a woman.


Or men who still think they're 20-29 or that they still look as good as they dId in their 20's.

I never would have married my hb if I wasn't really attracted to him, it's just that as I get older what I find attractive does change a bit. I still like fit men but I'm fine with them being older. This attraction is what keeps me having sex with him as my hormones and moods change. If I wasn't attracted that faucet would either be shut off or greatly reduced. Attraction can keep one gong through some tough times. 
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## tech-novelist

Somanylemons said:


> I think there are a few issues here.
> 
> I agree that it's perfectly OK to have preferences . . . but I think it's sometimes worth challenging them. For example I've seen many women flat out refuse to date men who are shorter then they are. I understand the preference but I don't think it's a wise one. How many women have dismissed the perfect man for them because he was too short?


Yes, why isn't that considered shallow?


----------



## EleGirl

technovelist said:


> Yes, why isn't that considered shallow?


A woman not wanting to date a man shorter than she is as shallow as a man not wanting to date a woman because of some physical attributes she may or may not have.


----------



## Jewel_brown37130

It's just a matter of personal preference. it seems to me when woman has a preference it's ok. But if a man says no fat chicks Then the world is ready to eat him up. Whether man of woman you have to be physically attracted to a person first. That's just how we are wired as human beings. Being overweight for instance already has it's share of emotional baggage ie. Low self-esteem that brings on insecurity for instance. Who wants to deal with that.


----------



## EleGirl

EllisRedding said:


> Listening to the radio on my drive to work this morning and they played the usual dating segment " We went on a date, I thought it went great, why didn't you call me back ...". The hosts called the guy on the phone, and he explained that when he saw a pic of her she looked great, but when they met for the date she was much heavier than the picture showed (not sure if an old pic or just a headshot), so that was a big turnoff. At that point 2 of the females hosts were ready to rip into him for saying that. I don't get it, are you not allowed to have specific physical characteristics that you are attracted to? I am not talking about berating or demeaning someone, but if you are not physically attracted to someone (who cares the reason) you are not physically attracted to them. Just because she may have a great personality, you should just push aside the physical aspect as if it doesn't exist  IDK, maybe it is just because we live in a society now where you have to be PC, if you are honest you are considered shallow, a dbag, etc...


You know what really bothers me about this?

She went on one date with some guy. While she thought it went great he apparently did not and did not want to date her beyond the first date.

The purpose of dating is to find out if the two people are compatible and are interested in each other. 9 out of 10 dates made online are going to flop.. shoot it might be 99 out of 100. 

This woman going on a show, complaining that he did not call her back and then actually having someone all him and ask is showing a log of insecurity.

He did not call back. He's obviously not someone for her. She should have just accepted that.

Sure it would be good to get feed back. Online first dates just do not work that way.


----------



## Holland

Lying about your weight, height, age etc is a major problem with OLD. I think it is far more shallow to lie about these things than the person who is put off by the extra weight, lack of height or extra age.

Some weird **** going on in the world of OLD, lying is very unattractive but loads of people do it. I would say the vast majority of men I met from OLD were shorter and older than they made out they were. Even so it is all good fun


----------



## RandomDude

The general consensus in society seems to be "give 'em a chance, don't be shallow"... meh I say "get out of the way! make some fking room"

In other words - get out of the way, and make some room so the prospect can actually meet someone who appreciates them

As for lies, tis how it is online it seems. Hence I go offline all the way, the eyes can't lie... unless you're wearing beer goggles


----------



## Runs like Dog

I don't care what anyone thinks. About pretty much anything.


----------



## lifeistooshort

Runs like Dog said:


> I don't care what anyone thinks. About pretty much anything.


----------



## Forest

I feel sorry for the current crop of US HS kids. 

You don't like overweight dates? You better either be rich or ready move to to the Mediterranean.

So, I guess you just need to be rich.


----------



## richardsharpe

Good evening
Maybe the reason some preferences are considered "shallow" is that people are complex. Trying to reduce them to a few parameters - height, weight, etc. can wind up missing the things that really matter.


----------



## morituri

Being shallow means that *we choose* superficial over substance. Having preferences doesn't make a person shallow, it's how we choose to act on them that will.


----------



## lmtosf

I bet if the two women had or have dating profiles, they would want a man several inches taller then them, and that to just start off a list of criteria. That is the same as a man wanting a woman not to be overweight in my view. Being a shorter guy 5-8, I am amazed how many woman that are 5 foot or 5 foot 3 or so and want a guy 5-10 or 6 or taller.


----------



## 3putt

zillard said:


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



Simply awesome!

LOL


----------



## morituri

3putt said:


> Simply awesome!
> 
> LOL


 Danger zone "Anyone named Tiffany" :rofl:


----------



## 3putt

morituri said:


> Danger zone "Anyone named Tiffany" :rofl:


I just emailed this to a family friend in WV. You can probably guess what her name is.

:laugh:


----------



## coffee4me

richardsharpe said:


> If you are looking for marriage, then appearance should be pretty far down the list. At 50 she is not going to be as objectively hot as at 20 - that is just the reality. If you love her, she may still be hot to YOU (as my wife is to me), but that is true of someone you love even if they were not hot to begin with .


richard, along with the video this paragraph have me a laugh today  

It just solidifies why a single woman like me is NOT looking for marriage. I don't want to hear a man tell me that my looks were far down on his list of criteria for marriage. Or that they found me hot after they fell in love with me. 

Alas... At almost 50 years old, the video can count me out of the hot and crazy categories. Darn I liked the idea of being a unicorn


----------



## lucy999

Runs like Dog said:


> I don't care what anyone thinks. About pretty much anything.


Bottle it up and sell it to me. I need some. I care waaaay too much. It's to my detriment sometimes.


----------



## Constable Odo

EllisRedding said:


> I don't get it, are you not allowed to have specific physical characteristics that you are attracted to?


Generally I find those who are "offended" by others having physical preferences are usually on the lower side of the attractiveness scale.


----------



## NextTimeAround

richardsharpe said:


> Good evening
> Maybe the reason some preferences are considered "shallow" is that people are complex. Trying to reduce them to a few parameters - height, weight, etc. can wind up missing the things that really matter.


Oh, and you think interviewers / employers / hiring managers are open minded.

don't several studies agree that the decision to hire someone is made within the first 30 seconds of the interview?

Go hassle employers first before you hassle individuals about their personal choices.


----------



## Curse of Millhaven

We all have predilections. Some like tall people, some prefer “fun size”, some like thin, some plump, some like blondes, others redheads, youth reigns supreme with some, while others are "all ages welcome", etc, etc, etc, ad infinitum. Is it shallow? Does it matter? Truthfully I don’t know and I’m not sure I care anymore.

We’re all superficial to the degree that a visceral response occurs when we see someone to whom we are attracted. It’s based solely on appearances and little else at first. So what? I think it becomes an issue for some when they internalize another’s preferences and judge themselves (and more importantly, their worth) accordingly. You’ll never measure up if you’re using another’s yardstick.

For me, in my life, I find all kinds of people attractive. I never know who or what will strike my fancy; I’m continually surprised. I’ve met men that objectively were considered very attractive and by all rights should have made my loins spontaneously combust, but in fact left me and my little lady downstairs cold. And conversely one of my biggest crushes was on a scruffy luthier/cellist who was short on looks, stature, and money, but let me tell you…that guy got more ass than a toilet seat. 

The height thing bothers a lot of guys but I’ve never cared. Over my lifetime I’ve been attracted to men that ranged in height from 5’3” to 6’4” and never really focused on it. Some of the shorter gents I was interested in rejected me based on my height (lol!), which was very small of them. I’ve never had a policy of “you must be at least this tall to get on this ride!” I’m 5’7” and wear 3”-4” heels every day for work and don’t give a sh!t. If you don’t like it, then get the fvck out of my way or be destroyed! I’ll crush small creatures in my path like Godzilla if provoked and will continue to do so until a mutant moth takes my ass down!!!

I don’t know where I was going with all this. Anyway. Be who you are, like what you like, just don’t be a d!ck about it. Easy peasy.


----------



## Satya

Many cannot handle the truth.


----------



## morituri

Curse of Millhaven said:


> I’m 5’7” and wear 3”-4” heels every day for work and don’t give a sh!t. If you don’t like it, then get the fvck out of my way or be destroyed! I’ll crush small creatures in my path like Godzilla if provoked and will continue to do so until a mutant moth takes my ass down!!!


Godzilla on high heels wearing pencil skirt? Sounds kind of hentai. :grin2:


----------



## zillard

coffee4me said:


> Alas... At almost 50 years old, the video can count me out of the hot and crazy categories. Darn I liked the idea of being a unicorn


Nonsense. There are plenty of smoking hot 50 yo women!
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## joannacroc

EleGirl said:


> That's funny.
> 
> There are some interesting things about it... we could change this to talk about men and it fits very well.
> 
> I disagree that if she's a 2=crazy and a 9/10=hot she's probably a dude... because I know a lot of very hot women who are as sane a any human can be.
> 
> Also, this is delivered by a guy is about a 4-5 on the hot scale. So he's not even in the 'fun zone' himself.


Obviously we are both the same type of shallow, as my initial knee-jerk reaction to this was that the guy delivering it is really not attractive at all.


----------



## Deejo

The original has over 11 million hits ... and it includes a scale for men. This was shot spur of the moment in a single take by a group of friends at gun club.

It should be considered absolutely authoritative and taken very seriously. 

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

I make no apologies for who and what I like, or if and when I stop liking it and like something else.


----------



## always_alone

Constable Odo said:


> Generally I find those who are "offended" by others having physical preferences are usually on the lower side of the attractiveness scale.


You aren't paying a lot of attention then, as there are very many beautiful women out there who really wish that more people could see them as real people instead of just a hot bod.

I mean, it's nice and all that so many people want to give you stuff because you're nice looking, but it can get lonely knowing they really don't give a rat's a$$ about you as a person, or make all sorts of judgements about how crazy or stuck up you are based solely on the way you look.


----------



## Constable Odo

always_alone said:


> You aren't paying a lot of attention then, as there are very many beautiful women out there who really wish that more people could see them as real people instead of just a hot bod.
> 
> I mean, it's nice and all that so many people want to give you stuff because you're nice looking, but it can get lonely knowing they really don't give a rat's a$$ about you as a person, or make all sorts of judgements about how crazy or stuck up you are based solely on the way you look.


None of which has to do with the OPs original statement. 

I often quote one of my friends, Dani, who has stated on several occasions "you're not going to sleep with a guy who makes you want to projectile vomit when he's laying, sweaty and grunting, on top of you, are you?"

Crude as she is, she's also right. She's just brutally honest. Honesty is something many people can't handle.

For some reason, many women have a hair up their rear when a man expresses a preference for a woman who is slender or average; at the very least, not porky. Now, while certainly there can be a myriad of reasons why a woman (or man) may carry extra weight, oftentimes it is simply laziness or a natural inclination not to take care of her/himself.


----------



## Faithful Wife

always_alone said:


> You aren't paying a lot of attention then, as there are very many beautiful women out there who really wish that more people could see them as real people instead of just a hot bod.
> 
> I mean, it's nice and all that so many people want to give you stuff because you're nice looking, but it can get lonely knowing they really don't give a rat's a$$ about you as a person, or make all sorts of judgements about how crazy or stuck up you are based solely on the way you look.


I'm very attractive and I have very strong physical preferences, but I also get offended when people are shallow. To me simply having a preference isn't shallow but going around and spouting off mean spirited things like "butter face" or "no fat chicks" is. It shows a basic disregard for people as human beings. Talking about one person you did not want a second date with due to their weight or height in a respectful manner is not shallow and is about one specific choice. There's no reason disparage "fat people" on a general level. That is shallow and immature.

I know when someone is seeing me as just a body and when they are regarding me as a human being....There's an obvious difference. I am not usually offended by just being seen as a body as long as the looker doesn't expect me to engage with them or appreciate their objectifying me. When they do expect to be acknowledged or when they expect me to be flattered by being objectified, that's when I put on my patented B*tch Face.


----------



## always_alone

I agree with other posters here that we shouldn't be lying to others about our weight, height or age, and to do so is just as superficial as judging someone on these.

But notice that Buddy didn't say "we weren't compatible" or "she misrepresented herself". All he said was "she's too fat", indicating that this was indeed the real criteria. 

Not sure why people get so offended by being called superficial, when that's exactly what they are. If all your criteria for assessing people is about their appearances, that's shallow, no matter how you slice it.

I mean, obviously we all have preferences, and no one can tell us otherwise. No one can make me find short pudgy balding dudes attractive, and of course I can exclude them from my "prospects" or leave my SO should he turn into any one of those things.

But if that's all I care about, then like it or not I'm shallow.


----------



## always_alone

Constable Odo said:


> For some reason, many women have a hair up their rear when a man expresses a preference for a woman who is slender or average; at the very least, not porky. Now, while certainly there can be a myriad of reasons why a woman (or man) may carry extra weight, oftentimes it is simply laziness or a natural inclination not to take care of her/himself.


Just like many men get their panties in a twist when a woman states that men who are short, fat, bald, old (or whatever) are gross. And then go gaga over tall young dude with good hair and washboard abs.

I mean, how many times have you heard men whinge about women always going for "a$$holes", and upset that they don't see what a great guy he is?

It's dehumanizing to be judged solely on superficial criteria. Whether or not those judgements are favorable.


----------



## Constable Odo

always_alone said:


> Just like many men get their panties in a twist when a woman states that men who are short, fat, bald, old (or whatever) are gross. And then go gaga over tall young dude with good hair and washboard abs.


All this says to me is they are self-conscious about their image. I worked once with a guy who was balding, and was the way you described. Ultimately what made him unattractive to women wasn't his bald head, but his attitude towards it.

I make no excuses for who and what I am. I am a product of nature, a product of my environment, a product of how I live my life. Why should I get upset when a woman does not find me attractive? Certainly, I find some women attractives, others not. I am sure there are some women (very few, naturally) who find me unattractive. I do not feel it is "shallow" of them, what "does it" for them is entirely their choice.



> I mean, how many times have you heard men whinge about women always going for "a$$holes", and upset that they don't see what a great guy he is?


Not very often. I hear this from far, far, far more women then I have ever heard it from men. I can probably count on both hands the number of times I've heard a male friend of mine say this over the previous 34 years of my dating life.




> It's dehumanizing to be judged solely on superficial criteria. Whether or not those judgements are favorable.


I disagree. Part (but certainly not all) of being human is your appearance. Why is it not acceptable to find one part of someone unattractive?

If a man finds a woman physically attractive, but her personally unattractive, is he chastized by other women because "she was not beautiful on the inside" ?

Yet, reverse that and feminists want to send him to a gulag and "sensitivity training".


----------



## southbound

I may be geared a little differently in this area. Sure, if you were to ask me for a list of physical things I like in a woman, I could probably produce one, but it would just be generic and wouldn't always make a difference with individual women. 

For me, it has always depended on the individual woman and a click. If I did click, I couldn't always explain it, and if I didn't click, I couldn't always explain that either. 

I like long, straight hair, for example, but it's just something I like that might be on my list; however, I don't require it for a relationship, nor would I ever not date a woman just because her hair wasn't that way. 

I suppose I could say generally speaking that I like women who aren't overweight; on the other hand, there is a woman at my work who is overweight that I think is as attractive as any actress or model I've ever seen. 

I think it's normal to have likes and dislikes. If her teeth are black from decay and she rarely baths, those things might send me in the other direction, but I never had any average things that were an automatic turn off like a little extra weight or a hair length.


----------



## Starstarfish

> Yet, reverse that and feminists want to send him to a gulag and "sensitivity training".


Not all "feminists" are the same. It's the same as making blanket statements about men, women, or any racial, religious, or political group. I consider myself feminist, and I don't want to send anyone to the gulag for not finding someone attractive. 

What bothers me is:

- Men who rage that X, Y, or Z (an area they are less than a "10" in) is an unfair consideration for attractiveness but imply that their own requirements are indeed, fair. Women being picky is "shallow" - men wanting certain things is "simply being men." I don't know how much people hear it IRL, but it's a common enough theme on TAM that I've seen it on more than one thread. 

- Jokes or poor humor aimed at women found unattractive. You don't have to find someone attractive, want to date them, or want to sleep with them. But we could all agree to at least be decent and not use grade school humor.

- The dangerous idea that one -deserves- a partner who is their "10" ideal, and that being ignored by desired partners means rage and worse, violence.


----------



## ScrambledEggs

SimplyAmorous said:


> I am one of those women who , even a little too much huskiness is a turn off to me in a man. I like 'em thin. My husband knows if his stomach starts getting pudgy..I'd probably starve him to get it down to that nice flat sexy look... My mother married my Father when she wasn't "head over heels" with him.. she told me she thought he was "too husky" (he was never overweight) .. I guess this is in my genes or something..
> 
> In His Needs Her Needs... one of those on the list is "attractive spouse" ...it simply matters to some..
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I agree... we have shallowness in different areas is all.. Some will not consider a man unless he makes $____, wouldn't go on a 2nd date if his car was too old..if he didn't show enough confidence... if he still lived at home over a certain age, if he used a coupon, she' turn her nose...the list goes on & on... I don't see why Looks are any different..
> 
> I'd happily take the coupon guy who showed up in an old pickup over a overweight man in an expensive sports car... I need to be able to look at a man from a distance. with an "up & down' and say to myself.. "mmmmm... not too bad!"... without external factors.. or it's just not going to work for me.


I am not sure how much I buy the his needs/her needs thing. Do most men really map to these this stereotypically?

I mean I look at the graphic and see a list of things in both columns and all of them are good and desirable, even mandatory in an relationship.

If I further look at it differently and ask myself "which of these is a deal breaker if the relationship does not have it? I get:

*Men*



Sexual fulfillment - Dealbreaker
Recreational companionship - Could be replaced with working together/
Attractive Spouse - Dealbreaker. If you are not attracted to them then WTF?
Domestic Support - If my spouse worked I'd happily pay for house cleaning and laundry services. So no not really a deal breaker.
Admiration - Dealbreaker. Who is going to be with someone they do not admire?


*Women*



Affection - Of course- as opposed to what? Scorn?

Conversation - How else do you communicate? Smoke signals? Deal breaker.

Honesty and openness - The lack of this ruined my marriage more than anything so Deal breaker.

Financial Support - Well could be replaced by raising kids, but a deal breaker outside of that. I would avoid going in deep with any women that is not interested in having a career with no kids in the picture.

Family Commitment - As opposed to? Sounds like a deal breaker to me.


Maybe I am missing the point but it seems to me that, with caveats, all of these are deal breakers for both men and women. Maybe men and women are more insecure about some of these but if you are not communicating and do your part in the relationship what do you have? 

Or maybe I just have the brain of a chick?


----------



## southbound

ScrambledEggs said:


> Sexual fulfillment - Dealbreaker
> Recreational companionship - Could be replaced with working together/
> Attractive Spouse - Dealbreaker. If you are not attracted to them then WTF?
> Domestic Support - If my spouse worked I'd happily pay for house cleaning and laundry services. So no not really a deal breaker.
> Admiration - Dealbreaker. Who is going to be with someone they do not admire?
> 
> 
> *Women*
> 
> 
> 
> Affection - Of course- as opposed to what? Scorn?
> 
> Conversation - How else do you communicate? Smoke signals? Deal breaker.
> 
> Honesty and openness - The lack of this ruined my marriage more than anything so Deal breaker.
> 
> Financial Support - Well could be replaced by raising kids, but a deal breaker outside of that. I would avoid going in deep with any women that is not interested in having a career with no kids in the picture.
> 
> Family Commitment - As opposed to? Sounds like a deal breaker to me.
> [/LIST






Good points. It seems like people often desire extreme versions of these or are picky about them. It seems that things like this always appear on lists of wants for a relationship, yet, they seem like such a given in a normal fashion. Conversation; as you wrote, what else, smoke signals? Sure, we all want someone who has conversation. We don't want someone who never talks; on the other hand, does it mean we all have to block off 3 hours every evening for nothing but conversation? Everybody has their own definition of acceptable conversation and all the other points.

Financial support. Sure, we all want bums for spouses, or maybe not. On the other hand, being rich is not a guarantee of happiness.


----------



## always_alone

Constable Odo said:


> Not very often. I hear this from far, far, far more women then I have ever heard it from men. I can probably count on both hands the number of times I've heard a male friend of mine say this over the previous 34 years of my dating life.
> .


Well, stick around here a little longer and you'll see thread after thread 

-lamenting about how women "love a$$holes", and nice guys don't get a chance, or
-criticizing women for caring only about status and money, or
-reassuring each other that women don't care much about looks, and will measure a man on many different criteria, 

Of course the pretense is that they are describing how women are "objectively and biologically", but scratch the surface and it's because they want women to appreciate them for who they are, and not just for some superficial characteristic.

The point is not about whether there are people out there who will find us unattractive. Of course there are, and no one expects otherwise. The point is that ultimately it's not just feminists who want to be appreciated for who we are, and all that we bring to the table. 

Of course, there are always those who don't care, and are perfectly happy to judge, and be judged only on the superficial. Typically, such people can accurately be described as shallow.


----------



## lifeistooshort

always_alone said:


> Well, stick around here a little longer and you'll see thread after thread
> 
> -lamenting about how women "love a$$holes", and nice guys don't get a chance, or
> -criticizing women for caring only about status and money, or
> -reassuring each other that women don't care much about looks, and will measure a man on many different criteria,
> 
> Of course the pretense is that they are describing how women are "objectively and biologically", but scratch the surface and it's because they want women to appreciate them for who they are, and not just for some superficial characteristic.
> 
> The point is not about whether there are people out there who will find us unattractive. Of course there are, and no one expects otherwise. The point is that ultimately it's not just feminists who want to be appreciated for who we are, and all that we bring to the table.
> 
> Of course, there are always those who don't care, and are perfectly happy to judge, and be judged only on the superficial. Typically, such people can accurately be described as shallow.



It's been my experience that those who judge on the superficial only do not in fact wish to be judged in kind. Usually because they can't reciprocate, and since statistically there aren't that many 9's, 10's, or filthy rich people there's a lot of competition for the few the are and the few there are can usually get what they want.

And because they know what it's like to be judged this way they often consider a little more. 

And those who wish to see what you're talking about need only watch the my wife cheated or dumped me threads. They'll find a plethora of posts telling him to get someone younger and hotter, based of course on the assumption that he has anything to offer younger and hotter. No advice find a better partner, unless younger and hotter equals a better partner, and they're advised that having some money will be an aphrodisiac to compete with the younger, better looking studs. But if she dates him for his money she's a gold digger.

Rough to square. 

So what they really want, as you pointed out, is to be able judge superficially but have her appreciate him for him. This double standard goes back a very long way. 
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## always_alone

Constable Odo said:


> All this says to me is they are self-conscious about their image. I worked once with a guy who was balding, and was the way you described. Ultimately what made him unattractive to women wasn't his bald head, but his attitude towards it.


Thinking about this a bit more: that you would even express it this way is a case in point. The overweight woman is unattractive simply because she is overweight, and no attitude adjustment can change that. But your bald friend? Why he's just fine, except for his attitude. 

Yet many women would find his baldness quite unattractive, and would reject him out of hand, simply for that. No matter what his attitude about it was.

I wonder, would you describe them as shallow?


----------



## unbelievable

If I were occupying a position which was highly prized by three quarters of the women on earth, I believe I'd act interested in keeping it.


----------



## Starstarfish

unbelievable said:


> If I were occupying a position which was highly prized by three quarters of the women on earth, I believe I'd act interested in keeping it.


What does that even mean?


----------



## Constable Odo

always_alone said:


> Well, stick around here a little longer and you'll see thread after thread


This forum isn't indicative of real life. Lots of bitter people here. If you read this forum and take it to heart, you'd never have another serious relationship with a woman for the rest of your life.




always_alone said:


> The overweight woman is unattractive simply because she is overweight, and no attitude adjustment can change that. But your bald friend? Why he's just fine, except for his attitude.


That's not what I said at all. You may want to re-read what I wrote and think about it again.




> Yet many women would find his baldness quite unattractive, and would reject him out of hand, simply for that. [...] I wonder, would you describe them as shallow?


Not at all. That's their choice. 

Rules of attraction state we want to find mates which, when we produce offspring, that offspring will likewise be attractive and have good genes that will in turn attract future mates; thus ensuring the propagation of our genetic material into future generations.

Sorry, I'm not getting a hard-on over Rosanne Barr, so if I'm stranded on a desert island with her, the species is going extinct. I don't care how nice of a person she is on the "inside".


----------



## SimplyAmorous

ScrambledEggs said:


> I am not sure how much I buy the his needs/her needs thing. Do most men really map to these this stereotypically?
> 
> I mean I look at the graphic and see a list of things in both columns and all of them are good and desirable, even mandatory in an relationship.


 they may be mandatory & this IS common sense (couldn't agree more so!) but a whole host of marital couples can't seem to hold true to them on a consistent basis in regards to each other... 

Why does this happen.. because we allow other things like bad habits, laziness, selfishness, other priorities to enter in, to come before our spouses....then resentment / apathy / feeling alone, disregarded enters in... soon what Gottman calls the 4 horsemen follows.... *Criticism*....*Contempt*...*Defensiveness*...and *Stonewalling*...

When one becomes passive aggressive for instance ... the communication is in the gutter...

We can read a book to explore WHY , and in what depth these emotional needs can play out in our lives..and how important they really are..... or you can find those who concentrate on the 4 horsemen ...and how to avoid such things....which again. ...the answers would be in the 1st book all along.. 

True...some do not need Domestic help (they can hire a maid if they both work & have the extra $$)... My husband is one who does need this as he is the primary Breadwinner.. 




> Maybe I am missing the point but it seems to me that, with caveats, all of these are deal breakers for both men and women. Maybe men and women are more insecure about some of these but if you are not communicating and do your part in the relationship what do you have?
> 
> Or maybe I just have the brain of a chick?


 My only point was every time people find this SHALLOW.. I want to say "NO, it's NOT shallow" if someone cares about their spouses attractiveness.. 

We are not all the same.. .some may not care if their husband or wife gains 50 lbs.. for them it's lower on the list of emotional needs .. but to others it could be *high* on that list.. and there is nothing wrong with this.. to them I say.. YOU ARE NOT SHALLOW !! Just felt it was worth a mention on this thread .. is all.


----------



## Forest

unbelievable said:


> If I were occupying a position which was highly prized by three quarters of the women on earth, I believe I'd act interested in keeping it.





Starstarfish said:


> What does that even mean?


My interpretation?

Not fat, not stupid, not out of shape, not a jerk-off. 

Really, how hard is it to stay within those parameters?

What amazes me today is how people are forced to settle for the fat, stupid, out of shape jerk-offs because society has averaged down to that less-than-mediocre example of a person, at least in the US. Thank God I visited Italy several years back and saw what is possible without cheez whiz and MTV. If you happen to be an Italian woman, and read this: Thank you.


----------



## unbelievable

Starstarfish said:


> What does that even mean?


Just pointing out the undeniable fact that to the average female inhabitant of planet Earth, finding an employed American (or Brit) husband would be like winning the lottery. Perhaps it's not politically correct to speak the truth, but it's still the truth.


----------



## lifeistooshort

unbelievable said:


> Just pointing out the undeniable fact that to the average female inhabitant of planet Earth, finding an employed American (or Brit) husband would be like winning the lottery. Perhaps it's not politically correct to speak the truth, but it's still the truth.


The only possible justification for that statement is if most men are unemployed pieces o sheet. Since that's generally not true your so called truth is your own belief. That's it.

Do you really think that little of other men?
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## always_alone

Constable Odo said:


> Rules of attraction state we want to find mates which, when we produce offspring, that offspring will likewise be attractive and have good genes that will in turn attract future mates; thus ensuring the propagation of our genetic material into future generations.


If that were true, there would be no ugly people or people with "bad genes" breeding (although why we assume "pretty"=good genes is beyond me). And, well, I got news for ya.

Good on you, though, for supporting women's shallowness as much as you support men's!


----------



## southbound

Constable Odo said:


> This forum isn't indicative of real life. Lots of bitter people here. If you read this forum and take it to heart, you'd never have another serious relationship with a woman for the rest of your life.


True. I often read here and think, "really, this is what it takes to have a successful marriage?


----------



## 2ntnuf

Constable Odo said:


> This forum isn't indicative of real life. Lots of bitter people here. If you read this forum and take it to heart, you'd never have another serious relationship with a woman for the rest of your life.





southbound said:


> True. I often read here and think, "really, this is what it takes to have a successful marriage?


Yep. Although, I know a few women and men who are examples of TAM theology. They are usually high drama individuals. They create their own drama and love to be a part of the destruction of those who don't fit their idea of what a person should be.


----------



## unbelievable

The average wage of a nurse in the Ukraine is about $80.00 a month. The average monthly wage in Brazil is about $800.00. A high school teacher in Costa Rica makes about $608.00 a month. Minimum wage in South Korea is about $4.50 an hour and it's about the same in Mexico. I haven't gotten to the really poor countries. Now, you still don't believe your average American guy, earning around $54K a year, taught from birth to not beat on women, looks pretty good around the globe?


----------



## lifeistooshort

Not if they live in San Francisco. These wages are apples and oranges, cost of living needs to be factored in. 

And frankly this is a standard of living issue that benefits both genders. You likely wouldn't have the life you do in any of those countries. In Ukraine you could be a drunk that dies at 50.

In Costa Rica you might be a day laborer that dies at 40. You don't know. 

We all benefit from this. I as a woman make way more then 54k. It's a sad day when a guy has to point to not being raised to beat women to look good, like that's all he offers. You tend to see the lowest standards for male behavior where men have the most power.

And I'd bet the men in those countries aren't concerned if they're getting duty sex or oral sex like western men are.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## 2ntnuf

Men can't have duty sex. If they aren't interested and it doesn't get the proper blood flow, they can't insert. Women can lie there and all is well. Duty sex can later be held against a man, and many don't know they even got it. They thought their wife wanted them. Then, women complain because men don't realize when they are having some trouble that needs taken care of. Well? Keep deceiving them and they'll never know.


----------



## EllisRedding

Constable Odo said:


> This forum isn't indicative of real life. Lots of bitter people here. If you read this forum and take it to heart, you'd never have another serious relationship with a woman for the rest of your life.





southbound said:


> True. I often read here and think, "really, this is what it takes to have a successful marriage?





2ntnuf said:


> Yep. Although, I know a few women and men who are examples of TAM theology. They are usually high drama individuals. They create their own drama and love to be a part of the destruction of those who don't fit their idea of what a person should be.


Ya know, I was actually thinking about starting a thread regarding this exact topic. Just something I noticed when I was talking to my wife, my perception of relationships (not mine in particular, more on a general basis) had somewhat soured since I joined TAM. It was actually quite interesting once I started to think about. If I have some time tomorrow I may start up a thread to discuss.


----------



## 2ntnuf

Why do you care if someone considers you shallow?


----------



## southbound

EllisRedding said:


> Ya know, I was actually thinking about starting a thread regarding this exact topic. Just something I noticed when I was talking to my wife, my perception of relationships (not mine in particular, more on a general basis) had somewhat soured since I joined TAM. It was actually quite interesting once I started to think about. If I have some time tomorrow I may start up a thread to discuss.


I think that would be an interesting thread. I too, have a soured view of relationships since coming here. If one goes by things here, I don't see how anyone has a successful relationship naturally. How could someone know all the things that it takes to satisfy someone in a relationship without intense study and training? It seems like one needs a Ph.D in relationships if one goes by things here. 

I'm 47, and I had no clue about a lot of things I've read here. I don't know whether to count it as an education or a set of ideas that doesn't necessarily apply to the average person.


----------



## Holland

Constable Odo said:


> ...........................
> 
> Rules of attraction state we want to find mates which, when we produce offspring, that offspring will likewise be attractive and have good genes that will in turn attract future mates; thus ensuring the propagation of our genetic material into future generations.
> 
> .........................


Maybe for some people but that is not my experience. I choose a man that was good father material, good morals with a high intelligence. My highest want for my kids is for them to achieve to their full potential. So far, so good, 3 very bright children, growing up into very well balanced adults that value others based on who they are not what they look like.

He may well have chosen me to be the mother of his kids because I am attractive but I am also a very good person with very similar value set to him. He knew I would be an excellent parent.


----------



## Holland

unbelievable said:


> The average wage of a nurse in the Ukraine is about $80.00 a month. The average monthly wage in Brazil is about $800.00. A high school teacher in Costa Rica makes about $608.00 a month. Minimum wage in South Korea is about $4.50 an hour and it's about the same in Mexico. I haven't gotten to the really poor countries. Now, you still don't believe your average American guy, earning around $54K a year, taught from birth to not beat on women, looks pretty good around the globe?


It is all relative. $54k is well below the average wage here but what relevance does money have to domestic violence?

Our wages are much higher than in America but our domestic violence rates are appalling, the figures are getting higher, Govt have been paying lip service for too long, the law is an ass when it comes to protecting women and children from DV blah blah blah

Oh but yeah we make heaps of money so all is good here.


----------



## Constable Odo

Holland said:


> I choose a man that was good father material, good morals with a high intelligence.


Does your husband know that you chose him to inseminate you not because you found him attractive, but instead because he had attractive sperm?


----------



## Holland

Constable Odo said:


> Does your husband know that you chose him to inseminate you not because you found him attractive, but instead because he had attractive sperm?


Yes. We took having children very seriously. 

Choosing a partner to have kids with based on looks sort of makes my stomach turn. If they are attractive AND have all the qualities you hold in high esteem then great but to choose a co parent based on looks alone is not for me.


----------



## Holland

Constable Odo said:


> *Fascinating. A woman who chooses to have sex with a man she finds physically repugnant, but he has excellent sperm.*
> 
> Did you have to leave the lights off or close your eyes and pretend he was Brad Pitt?
> 
> This must give new meaning to "starfish sex", as I can't imagine a woman who finds the man grinding into her repugnant would be all that responsive or engaged in the experience.


Perhaps you should read my reply properly.


----------



## Constable Odo

Holland said:


> Perhaps you should read my reply properly.


You're saying you do not find your husband physically repugnant?

So his looks did matter after all.

That's what I figured. Thanks for confirming what we all already knew.


----------



## Holland

Constable Odo said:


> You're saying you do not find your husband physically repugnant?
> 
> So his looks did matter after all.
> 
> That's what I figured. Thanks for confirming what we all already knew.


I am happy to have a civil conversation with a civil person, when you are ready to stop reading between the lines and making insane value judgements just let me know.


----------



## alexm

I think a large portion of someone being "shallow" isn't so much that the other person doesn't necessarily meet their standards, but how one perceives that person reflects on them (in public, amongst friends and family, etc.)

If someone is overweight for example, then okay, maybe the initial (physical) attraction isn't there. But attraction is generated by so many other things - personality, character, sense of humor, what-have-you. If you shut down a blind date right off the bat because the other person is 50lbs overweight, then yes - that's shallow imo.

When you, as they say, "judge a book by it's cover", then yes, that's shallow.

The irony is that, the older and more experienced you get, the more one starts to realize that attraction is so much more than physical. Is it important? Yes, of course. But not nearly as much as it once was, and it often drops down to 3 or 4 on the scale of important things to look for in a partner.

But, like my first point, people tend to judge others based on how they would reflect upon them when others are around. One generally wants to avoid being stared at or talked about.

I'll give you two examples in my experience, one on either side:

My first girlfriend ever was a bigger girl, 5'6" and around 190lbs. Beautiful as all hell, confident and funny. Do you think my guy friends saw past her weight? Of course not. I even had a female friend around that time who said something along the lines of "oh, it's so sweet you're dating her, you know, because she's a bigger girl and all that." Like I was doing it out of charity.

And on my side of things, I'm not a big guy - 5'7", 165lbs. Do you know how many times in my life I was flat-out rejected by women because I was too short for them? And very very bluntly on occasion.


----------



## Satya

always_alone said:


> If that were true, there would be no ugly people or people with "bad genes" breeding (although why we assume "pretty"=good genes is beyond me). And, well, I got news for ya.
> 
> Good on you, though, for supporting women's shallowness as much as you support men's!


Well, I'll probably get flamed for this, so putting on my flame retardant gloves, but I believe that if we were still living like cavemen, there are a lot of genes that would have never carried on over the generations. We as a species have successfully altered nature's original plan (or maybe this is nature's plan all along?). But, because that's the world we just live in, few consider the alternatives, or what life would be like if we actually had to vie for survival.


----------



## Satya

EllisRedding said:


> Ya know, I was actually thinking about starting a thread regarding this exact topic. Just something I noticed when I was talking to my wife, my perception of relationships (not mine in particular, more on a general basis) had somewhat soured since I joined TAM. It was actually quite interesting once I started to think about. If I have some time tomorrow I may start up a thread to discuss.


You really must take a healthy break from TAM once every so often. It is both good and bad... Good for those that need a kick in the pants, but once the advice has been dispensed, and possibly used, there's a natural graduation process.


----------



## lifeistooshort

Holland said:


> Perhaps you should read my reply properly.


Yeah, I'm having a hard time figuring out how good father material equals repugnant. To me it means you considered something besides looks.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## Holland

lifeistooshort said:


> Yeah, I'm having a hard time figuring out how good father material equals repugnant. To me it means you considered something besides looks.
> _Posted via Mobile Device_


Not sure how it turned into me thinking he is repugnant, very far fetched, crazy.

Honestly the whole concept of having kids based on looks is repugnant. Funny thing is one of the ugliest guys I know has beautiful parents and I have seen ugly parents have beautiful children. Does that mean that any one of them is a more worthy human? No way, not ever to me.


----------



## richardsharpe

Good evening
To someone in a desperate financial situation in some 3rd world country, yes any escape would look good. For most of the world though, people are less wealthy than in the US / europe but can still have happy lives. Right now I'm in a country where per capita income is probably 1/4 of the US, but when I look around I still see lots of happy people (and of course unhappy ones). I suspect very few women here would want to marry me just because I'm from a wealthier country. (they might of course due to my irresistible charms...)

Similarly I wouldn't trade my wife for a woman who was a billionaire. Money is great, but honestly it doesn't make all that much difference to happiness.






unbelievable said:


> The average wage of a nurse in the Ukraine is about $80.00 a month. The average monthly wage in Brazil is about $800.00. A high school teacher in Costa Rica makes about $608.00 a month. Minimum wage in South Korea is about $4.50 an hour and it's about the same in Mexico. I haven't gotten to the really poor countries. Now, you still don't believe your average American guy, earning around $54K a year, taught from birth to not beat on women, looks pretty good around the globe?


----------



## richardsharpe

Good evening
Recessive genes do not easily breed out of the population. This was the fundamental technical flaw of eugenics. Needless to say, eugenics had moral flaws that were incomparably worse, but I'm amused that it wouldn't have worked even if the Nazis had won. The were evil AND stupid. 




Satya said:


> Well, I'll probably get flamed for this, so putting on my flame retardant gloves, but I believe that if we were still living like cavemen, there are a lot of genes that would have never carried on over the generations. We as a species have successfully altered nature's original plan (or maybe this is nature's plan all along?). But, because that's the world we just live in, few consider the alternatives, or what life would be like if we actually had to vie for survival.


----------



## Rowan

alexm said:


> The irony is that, the older and more experienced you get, the more one starts to realize that attraction is so much more than physical. Is it important? Yes, of course. But not nearly as much as it once was, and it often drops down to 3 or 4 on the scale of important things to look for in a partner.


My fella and I had this very conversation over the weekend. We both feel that, above a baseline level of "acceptably physically attractive", whether you're in to a person pretty much comes down to things other than physical looks. We've both been doing online dating. In fact, it's how we met. Basically, he's willing to at least meet for drinks with women whose photos don't actively repulse him. I'm the same. As long as I don't look at a guy's profile picture and think "garden gnome" or "troll" then I'm at least willing to try a first date - given that there otherwise seems to be some level of compatibility. 

He's 10 years my senior, and was quick to confess that - at least for him - this was a revelation of the mid-40's. Having a stunningly beautiful, and batsh!t crazy, ex-wife probably contributed to his realization that really physically attractive people with bad character can start to seem very ugly over time. He's my proof that a guy with his stuff together can generate all sorts of emotional, intellectual and sexual chemistry - making him seem like the most beautiful man in the world.


----------



## 2ntnuf

Rowan said:


> My fella and I had this very conversation over the weekend. We both feel that, above a baseline level of "acceptably physically attractive", whether you're in to a person pretty much comes down to things other than physical looks. We've both been doing online dating. In fact, it's how we met. Basically, he's willing to at least meet for drinks with women whose photos don't actively repulse him. I'm the same. As long as I don't look at a guy's profile picture and think "garden gnome" or "troll" then I'm at least willing to try a first date - given that there otherwise seems to be some level of compatibility.
> 
> He's 10 years my senior, and was quick to confess that - at least for him - this was a revelation of the mid-40's. Having a stunningly beautiful, and batsh!t crazy, ex-wife probably contributed to his realization that really physically attractive people with bad character can start to seem very ugly over time. He's my proof that a guy with his stuff together can generate all sorts of emotional, intellectual and sexual chemistry - making him seem like the most beautiful man in the world.


Just wanted to add the disclaimer that crazies come in all shapes, sizes and appearances. Point taken. If they are crazy to start with, doesn't matter what they look like, that won't mean much because you won't have much peace and they likely won't be thinking about sex if all kinds of other crap is spinning their head around.


----------



## Deejo

southbound said:


> I think that would be an interesting thread. I too, have a soured view of relationships since coming here. If one goes by things here, I don't see how anyone has a successful relationship naturally. How could someone know all the things that it takes to satisfy someone in a relationship without intense study and training? It seems like one needs a Ph.D in relationships if one goes by things here.
> 
> I'm 47, and I had no clue about a lot of things I've read here. I don't know whether to count it as an education or a set of ideas that doesn't necessarily apply to the average person.


People have a habit of making things harder than they have to be.

You need to know what is important to you, and what is important to your partner, and recognize if those things do not align.

Everything else is window dressing.


----------



## Constable Odo

lifeistooshort said:


> Yeah, I'm having a hard time figuring out how good father material equals repugnant. To me it means you considered something besides looks.


Nope, it just means she's not being honest with herself, and has convinced herself that quality sperm was the deciding factor; when in fact, we all know, it wasn't.


----------



## Holland

Constable Odo said:


> Nope, it just means she's not being honest with herself, and has convinced herself that quality sperm was the deciding factor; when in fact, we all know, it wasn't.


In fact you know nothing about me. If you did you would know that honesty is one of my strong points.

Do you have some personal issue you are trying to work out here? I am pretty tough if you want to talk about whatever it is.


----------



## Constable Odo

Holland said:


> In fact you know nothing about me. If you did you would know that honesty is one of my strong points.
> 
> Do you have some personal issue you are trying to work out here? I am pretty tough if you want to talk about whatever it is.


I'm sure you feel you're being honest with yourself and with others.

I'm also sure if your husband physically repulsed you, his high-quality sperm notwithstanding, he wouldn't have been the man who inseminated you.

Physical attraction provides the fundamental basis of reproduction in the human animal, at an instinctive level.


----------



## Satya

richardsharpe said:


> Good evening
> Recessive genes do not easily breed out of the population. This was the fundamental technical flaw of eugenics. Needless to say, eugenics had moral flaws that were incomparably worse, but I'm amused that it wouldn't have worked even if the Nazis had won. The were evil AND stupid.


Richard, I get your point, but I wasnt talking about Eugenics as per the Nazis. I was talking about cave man days. Eugenics was just another way to try and influence nature. I'm talking about a time when we fended for ourselves, uninfluenced as yet by politics or social constructs, and had no comprehension of genetics in the way we do today. If we were still living like that, it'd be interesting to see how we fared.


----------



## Holland

Constable Odo said:


> I'm sure you feel you're being honest with yourself and with others.
> 
> I'm also sure if your husband physically repulsed you, his high-quality sperm notwithstanding, he wouldn't have been the man who inseminated you.
> 
> Physical attraction provides the fundamental basis of reproduction in the human animal, at an instinctive level.


I did not say he physically repulsed me. If you want to keep making stuff up then knock yourself out.


----------



## Satya

Holland said:


> I did not say he physically repulsed me. If you want to keep making stuff up then knock yourself out.


I think you two are in agreement actually, just seeing it from very different POV's. 

Odo's point he is making (I believe) is that attraction always plays a role, as though we are hardwired. Holland, your responses acknowledge as much. 

Holland you recognize attraction played a role, but not as strongly as recognizing the fatherly traits in your husband. 

I think that Odo is saying attraction to factors other than looks SOMETIMES plays a role, but not as fundamentally as looks, for the purposes of procreation. There's a lot of differing opinion on this and I believe I know why. We don't want to appear shallow or, we want to be seen as more cerebral than the Lizard brain we still tote. That's a separate discussion.... 

I don't disagree with Odo. Attraction to looks has to be there for me personally. What I find attractive someone else may find repugnant. Good father traits, as we know, are not always the standard, but yes, they too are very important to me. In many cases, women go for bad boys that won't always make great fathers. Why is this, if good fatherly traits are so crucial? I can't explain it... But in my own past I've fallen for an attractive man that simply won't give me the future I desire. Does it make me silly, or human? I still ponder on that one... Im simply lucky to have found a man now that not only sets me on fire down below, but also in my brain and heart. 

I could be completely wrong in my interpretation of you two and your arguments, but I'm just calling it as I see it. 

Carry on!


----------



## Holland

Actually no Satya we are not saying the same thing at all. He said that


> Rules of attraction state we want to find mates which, when we produce offspring, that offspring will likewise be attractive and have good genes that will in turn attract future mates; thus ensuring the propagation of our genetic material into future generations.


to which I disagreed. He then went on to some borderline nasty comments and statements that in no way reflected what I actually said.

FWIW I did not choose to have children with their dad due to appearances. That does not mean I had star fish sex with a man I find repugnant as odo has made up. 

As I said I am happy to have a conversation but the utterly nasty tone of his posts are repugnant. Perhaps it is because I disagree with his premise that people base having children with someone based on appearance.


----------



## Constable Odo

Satya said:


> I think that Odo is saying attraction to factors other than looks SOMETIMES plays a role, but not as fundamentally as looks, for the purposes of procreation.


Men and women use different criteria for selecting a mate for procreation. In men, we use physical attributes which suggest to us a woman will be able to successfully bear us many strong sons. Thus, we generally (at a subconscious) level look for physical signs of health and fertility.

Humans love to think they are "intelligent" and somehow above their base instincts on these issues, but the reality is, much of our lives are rooted in these behaviors evolved over the millennia of human existence.

Women have a greater investment in the reproductive process (i.e. us men can be "pump and dump" and, like the bumblebee, move on to the next attractive flower to pollinate.... while women wake up in the morning, pregnant, facing raising a child for many years until it is self-sufficient). As such, they have to look "deeper" then men do. Physical attributes play a role, but are also supplemented by other attributes which a woman feels she wants in her children; e.g. a strong leader, an intelligent man, etc. Some women may seek brains, others brawn. Even then, much of this selection process is subconscious, hence why women are inexplicably drawn to the same type of man repeatedly.

Men, generally, do not think this way. We do not have to.

In either case, in most cases, given a choice, men and women collectively are not going to mate with someone they find physically unattractive. 

This is naturally all relative based on many factors. Availability of other, higher-quality mating choices, for example (e.g. the "beggars can't be choosers" paradigm.)

Denying physical attraction is the fundamental basis of human reproduction is akin to denying the sun is a yellow dwarf main sequence star.


----------



## Satya

Okay, understood. I usually butt out in these situations. Probably should have in this case.

If i may, you've both given me some things to think about in these exchanges, even if a bit heated, so from the outside I look at it as a learning experience.


----------



## Satya

Constable Odo said:


> As such, they [women] have to look "deeper" then men do. Physical attributes play a role, but are also supplemented by other attributes which a woman feels she wants in her children; e.g. a strong leader, an intelligent man, etc. Some women may seek brains, others brawn. Even then, much of this selection process is subconscious, hence why women are inexplicably drawn to the same type of man repeatedly.


This.... Is what I was attempting to say, with a personal view, just not quite as clinical. Just quoting for emphasis.


----------



## unbelievable

richardsharpe said:


> Good evening
> To someone in a desperate financial situation in some 3rd world country, yes any escape would look good. For most of the world though, people are less wealthy than in the US / europe but can still have happy lives. Right now I'm in a country where per capita income is probably 1/4 of the US, but when I look around I still see lots of happy people (and of course unhappy ones). I suspect very few women here would want to marry me just because I'm from a wealthier country. (they might of course due to my irresistible charms...)
> 
> Similarly I wouldn't trade my wife for a woman who was a billionaire. Money is great, but honestly it doesn't make all that much difference to happiness.


Men don't typically enter into relationships for security. Prince Charming didn't marry Cinderella because she had money. His life didn't change from one of drudgery and poverty to one of leisure and wealth on their wedding day.

See any shows in the U.S. entitled "who wants to marry a really nice poor guy?" How about "Poverty Matchmaker". If you were a billionaire, would not that fact alone quite effectively widen the pool of women interested in your company?


----------



## 2ntnuf

Looks alone with a modicum of personality can be a game changer. As looks fade, other qualities replace them and become a greater part of the attraction. 

Billionaires will have the greatest opportunity to find so-called beautiful women. They will believe their looks place them in a position to deserve a higher income mate. This happens more among men who are that wealthy, but I would guess it happens fairly regularly among wealthy women as well. Although, you don't often see relationships like...who was that? I have to look it up and post it in a few minutes. I remember being shocked.

Anna Nicole Smith and J. Howard Marshall


----------



## unbelievable

I don't believe most wealthy women would give the time of day to a poor man. It happens, but it's rare. The bargain has historically been, "nurturing and sex in exchange for security". It pretty much still is.


----------



## 2ntnuf

unbelievable said:


> I don't believe most wealthy women would give the time of day to a poor man. It happens, but it's rare. The bargain has historically been, "nurturing and sex in exchange for security". It pretty much still is.


Why does that read like prostitution to me? Is there something different about that and prostitution? Is it just that it's within a monogamous relationship that denies that classification? We've seen posts here that lead to believe that a marriage might not necessarily be monogamous and still be classified as marriage. It's very confusing. I have struggled with understanding the difference. Is it just that a woman is standing on the street advertising and selling it rather than keeping it a secret among the wealthy that she is open to something like that? I'm seriously confused.


----------



## Constable Odo

2ntnuf said:


> Why does that read like prostitution to me?


Isn't sex really just a transaction?

A woman decides how many dates (read: how much we have to spend on her) before she will put out.

A man decides whether or not the amount of time, and money, he will have to invest in order to access the honey-pot is worth it.


Wasn't there a movie about this a few years ago? A man offered another couple a lot of money to sleep with his wife?

Or, as the old joke goes:

Man (To Woman): "Excuse me, will you have sex with me for $1 million?"
Woman (replying): "Hell yes! Pay Up!"
Man (fishing around in pockets): "All I have at the moment is a $20. Will that suffice?"
Woman: "Hell no, what do you think I am anyway?"
Man: "We've already determined what you are. Now we're just negotiating a price."


----------



## naiveonedave

ScrambledEggs said:


> I am not sure how much I buy the his needs/her needs thing. Do most men really map to these this stereotypically?
> 
> I mean I look at the graphic and see a list of things in both columns and all of them are good and desirable, even mandatory in an relationship.
> 
> If I further look at it differently and ask myself "which of these is a deal breaker if the relationship does not have it? I get:
> 
> *Men*
> 
> 
> 
> Sexual fulfillment - Dealbreaker
> Recreational companionship - Could be replaced with working together/
> Attractive Spouse - Dealbreaker. If you are not attracted to them then WTF?
> Domestic Support - If my spouse worked I'd happily pay for house cleaning and laundry services. So no not really a deal breaker.
> Admiration - Dealbreaker. Who is going to be with someone they do not admire?
> 
> 
> *Women*
> 
> 
> 
> Affection - Of course- as opposed to what? Scorn?
> 
> Conversation - How else do you communicate? Smoke signals? Deal breaker.
> 
> Honesty and openness - The lack of this ruined my marriage more than anything so Deal breaker.
> 
> Financial Support - Well could be replaced by raising kids, but a deal breaker outside of that. I would avoid going in deep with any women that is not interested in having a career with no kids in the picture.
> 
> Family Commitment - As opposed to? Sounds like a deal breaker to me.
> 
> 
> Maybe I am missing the point but it seems to me that, with caveats, all of these are deal breakers for both men and women. Maybe men and women are more insecure about some of these but if you are not communicating and do your part in the relationship what do you have?
> 
> Or maybe I just have the brain of a chick?


HN HN are somewhat broad generalizations, but probably fit most people. At least that is my opinion.


----------



## Constable Odo

unbelievable said:


> Men don't typically enter into relationships for security. Prince Charming didn't marry Cinderella because she had money. His life didn't change from one of drudgery and poverty to one of leisure and wealth on their wedding day.


Two words:

John Kerry.


----------



## unbelievable

2ntnuf said:


> Why does that read like prostitution to me? Is there something different about that and prostitution? Is it just that it's within a monogamous relationship that denies that classification? We've seen posts here that lead to believe that a marriage might not necessarily be monogamous and still be classified as marriage. It's very confusing. I have struggled with understanding the difference. Is it just that a woman is standing on the street advertising and selling it rather than keeping it a secret among the wealthy that she is open to something like that? I'm seriously confused.


Maybe because you're looking for a reason to be offended or maybe you've fallen prey to feminist indoctrination. 

Human beings have inhabited this planet for millions of years. We've learned a few truths along the way. It's hard for a woman to earn her own living while being in the late term of pregnancy and while caring for a newborn. It was hard for her to care for children and leave them alone to hunt meat for herself and for her offspring. Bingo, "marriage" was invented to provide security she could not always provide for herself and for her kids and civilization survived.
Even allegedly liberated modern women have had to resort to societal supports such as FMLA, welfare, WIC, etc because they still require external security to a degree that most men don't. 

For a woman desirous of security, an American male represents exactly that to most women of the earth to a degree relatively few males on earth can offer. For a male desirous of nurturing and sex, almost any female on earth is equipped to meet his need. 

Three Out Of Four Women Would Not Marry An Unemployed Man: Report

75% of American women polled said they would not marry an unemployed guy. 

Women Don't Date Unemployed Men. But The Other Way Around Is OK? | YourTango

75% of American women polled said they wouldn't date an unemployed male. Only 8% of American men said they wouldn't date an unemployed female.

If 3/4 of women in the most prosperous nation on earth value financial security so highly as to make it's absence a deal-breaker, imagine how motivated truly impoverished women are.


----------



## Constable Odo

unbelievable said:


> If 3/4 of women in the most prosperous nation on earth value financial security so highly as to make it's absence a deal-breaker, imagine how motivated truly impoverished women are.


This doesn't factor in, though, the fact that American women are extremely materialistic and suffer from Princess sickness/Entitlemental Mentality, compared to many of their female counterparts from other areas of the world (I'm fortunate in my job to interact with men and women from all sections of the globe, so have the benefit of being exposed to many different cultural norms).


----------



## 2ntnuf

unbelievable said:


> Maybe because you're looking for a reason to be offended or maybe you've fallen prey to feminist indoctrination.
> 
> Human beings have inhabited this planet for millions of years. We've learned a few truths along the way. It's hard for a woman to earn her own living while being in the late term of pregnancy and while caring for a newborn. It was hard for her to care for children and leave them alone to hunt meat for herself and for her offspring. Bingo, "marriage" was invented to provide security she could not always provide for herself and for her kids and civilization survived.
> Even allegedly liberated modern women have had to resort to societal supports such as FMLA, welfare, WIC, etc because they still require external security to a degree that most men don't.
> 
> For a woman desirous of security, an American male represents exactly that to most women of the earth to a degree relatively few males on earth can offer. For a male desirous of nurturing and sex, almost any female on earth is equipped to meet his need.
> 
> Three Out Of Four Women Would Not Marry An Unemployed Man: Report
> 
> 75% of American women polled said they would not marry an unemployed guy.
> 
> Women Don't Date Unemployed Men. But The Other Way Around Is OK? | YourTango
> 
> 75% of American women polled said they wouldn't date an unemployed male. Only 8% of American men said they wouldn't date an unemployed female.
> 
> If 3/4 of women in the most prosperous nation on earth value financial security so highly as to make it's absence a deal-breaker, imagine how motivated truly impoverished women are.


I didn't get the correlation to prostitution. Do you mean women didn't want to have to prostitute themselves when they were pregnant, so they invented marriage? So, then how does marriage correlate to a single woman who is not pregnant and taking responsibility for her fertility offering herself for the benefit of receiving money in return. Security doesn't always mean money given to her to spend. It can mean being provided a roof, food, clothing and care for her and the infant. None of those seem like anything, but responsible behavior, unrelated to what I was asking.


----------



## tech-novelist

always_alone said:


> I agree with other posters here that we shouldn't be lying to others about our weight, height or age, and to do so is just as superficial as judging someone on these.
> 
> But notice that Buddy didn't say "we weren't compatible" or "she misrepresented herself". All he said was "she's too fat", indicating that this was indeed the real criteria.
> 
> Not sure why people get so offended by being called superficial, when that's exactly what they are. If all your criteria for assessing people is about their appearances, that's shallow, no matter how you slice it.
> 
> I mean, obviously we all have preferences, and no one can tell us otherwise. No one can make me find short pudgy balding dudes attractive, and of course I can exclude them from my "prospects" or leave my SO should he turn into any one of those things.
> 
> But if that's all I care about, then like it or not I'm shallow.


So you're not shallow if you exclude men for being "short pudgy [and] balding", as long as that's not all you care about?

Thanks for clearing that up!


----------



## unbelievable

What women REALLY want: To marry a rich man and stay at home with the children | Daily Mail Online


----------



## 2ntnuf

unbelievable said:


> What women REALLY want: To marry a rich man and stay at home with the children | Daily Mail Online


That title is misleading. Take away her credit cards with no limit or place a limit of $250.00 on them and just give her the children to care for and some old clunker car that can only go about 20 miles and you watch how fast she will run for the hills or another rich man.


----------



## unbelievable

2ntnuf said:


> I didn't get the correlation to prostitution. Do you mean women didn't want to have to prostitute themselves when they were pregnant, so they invented marriage? So, then how does marriage correlate to a single woman who is not pregnant and taking responsibility for her fertility offering herself for the benefit of receiving money in return. Security doesn't always mean money given to her to spend. It can mean being provided a roof, food, clothing and care for her and the infant. None of those seem like anything, but responsible behavior, unrelated to what I was asking.


Even most single women realize there will likely come a day when they want kids. Besides, regardless of the attempts to change the world over the past 30 years, we have millions of years of evolutionary experience and we aren't all that different from our ancestors. I will concede there are a few women who care little about material security but they are rare and their attitudes about security will likely change the day they lose their job.


----------



## unbelievable

Women are women and men are men. Women behaving as women are no more prostitutes than men are slaves for living as traditional men.


----------



## 2ntnuf

unbelievable said:


> Women are women and men are men. Women behaving as women are no more prostitutes than men are slaves for living as traditional men.


Then there is no such thing as prostitution. It's just another way to collect taxes and hold a husband to his vows by controlling him with the law? Odd and I'm done. Enough threadjacking for one day.


----------



## unbelievable

Constable Odo said:


> Two words:
> 
> John Kerry.


He married in 1995 and he was a Senator at the time. He wasn't born in a log cabin. He went to Yale and has been a lawyer since 1976.


----------



## always_alone

Constable Odo said:


> This doesn't factor in, though, the fact that American women are extremely materialistic and suffer from Princess sickness/Entitlemental Mentality, compared to many of their female counterparts from other areas of the world (I'm fortunate in my job to interact with men and women from all sections of the globe, so have the benefit of being exposed to many different cultural norms).



It's funny how many men here think that the solution to all of their relationship woes is to simply go overseas and find a suitably submissive/accommodating woman whose standards are so low that she can't help but be grateful for the supposedly "rich" American man. What most men who do seek foreign mates find is that women in other countries are also ... wait for it .. people. Actual, real, live people. And they too have quite a lot of individual variation in materialism, entitlement, expectations and so on.

My Filipino sister-in-law, for example, is vastly more impressed by brand names, wealth, and the trappings of wealth and status than me or some of my Western counterparts. She also is quite a task-master, and keeps my brother on his toes, constantly. Fortunately for him, he married her for love, and is either happy enough with or absolutely appreciates what she brings to the table. Including her feminism. Some of the men here, though, I suspect would be sorely disappointed with what they found elsewhere. Sure, you can buy a certain amount of sex with money, but love and loyalty? Forget it. Doesn't really matter what country you come from.


----------



## always_alone

Satya said:


> Well, I'll probably get flamed for this, so putting on my flame retardant gloves, but I believe that if we were still living like cavemen, there are a lot of genes that would have never carried on over the generations. We as a species have successfully altered nature's original plan (or maybe this is nature's plan all along?). But, because that's the world we just live in, few consider the alternatives, or what life would be like if we actually had to vie for survival.


I think, generally speaking, that we have a tendency to read too many of our modern biases into the past.

Studies of hunting/gathering societies, for example, show that people (men and women) tended to work no more than about 4 hours a day. This included all of the basic survival tasks: food, water, shelter, clothing (where applicable), and so on. The rest of the time, they spent in recreational activities, and in fact had more leisure time and relaxation than we do today.

In addition, both men and women contributed to the work. Women did not, in fact, sit around waiting to be provided for by men. They did a huge proportion of gathering of food and water, as well as cooking and building shelters.

We love to assume our Victorian sensibilities have held for all time and place, and that these traditional gender roles are somehow part of our "limbic" brain. But all the evidence points to quite different conclusions.


----------



## always_alone

Constable Odo said:


> Denying physical attraction is the fundamental basis of human reproduction is akin to denying the sun is a yellow dwarf main sequence star.


A huge number of marriages around the world are arranged, and choice often plays no role in who a person might end up reproducing with. 

This whole "attraction/love/romance" think is a product of the modern era.


----------



## alexm

Rowan said:


> He's 10 years my senior, and was quick to confess that - at least for him - this was a revelation of the mid-40's. Having a stunningly beautiful, and batsh!t crazy, ex-wife probably contributed to his realization that really physically attractive people with bad character can start to seem very ugly over time. He's my proof that a guy with his stuff together can generate all sorts of emotional, intellectual and sexual chemistry - making him seem like the most beautiful man in the world.


That's how it goes. Somebody could be the most beautiful, sexy creature on earth, but they're rendered ugly if they have a terrible personality.

My ex wife was a real head-turner everywhere she went. And she started out with a real A+ personality, too. But that changed over time, and it caused to her to be hugely unattractive to me.

I've had the opposite happen to me over the years, too - somebody who wasn't a head-turner suddenly became very physically attractive to me once I got to know them. It's not so much seeing past them as it is a change in how one views somebody if they're attractive in other ways.

Luckily, my current wife is both beautiful AND cool!


----------



## EleGirl

2ntnuf said:


> That title is misleading. Take away her credit cards with no limit or place a limit of $250.00 on them and just give her the children to care for and some old clunker car that can only go about 20 miles and you watch how fast she will run for the hills or another rich man.


Yet there are literally millions of women in the USA who have little to no money, drive a clunker car and who stay in the marriage with the guy who can provide only that.

There are other millions of marriages in which women work a job (70% of women work at jobs. 40% of married women are the main bread winner in their marriage.)

Why the need to portray women and gold digging *****s is beyond me.


----------



## 2ntnuf

EleGirl said:


> snip.
> Why the need to portray women and gold digging *****s is beyond me.


Listen to me Ele. 

I did not call women gold diggers. I did not use profanity in my posts on this topic. I'm not even sure what profane word you used. 

That's quite different from the topic in those posts, which was those women who marry billionaires like in the post I made with Anna Nicole Smith and the billionaire. 

That is not all women and I am quite offended by your false accusations. 

Your mind seems to create issues where there are none. I don't know why that is. You like to call out folks for things that don't really match what they were posting, but are close enough to start an argument or create an issue. 

Start a fight with someone else.


----------



## EleGirl

Constable Odo said:


> Men and women use different criteria for selecting a mate for procreation. In men, we use physical attributes which suggest to us a woman will be able to successfully bear us many strong sons. Thus, we generally (at a subconscious) level look for physical signs of health and fertility.
> 
> Humans love to think they are "intelligent" and somehow above their base instincts on these issues, but the reality is, much of our lives are rooted in these behaviors evolved over the millennia of human existence.
> 
> Women have a greater investment in the reproductive process (i.e. us men can be "pump and dump" and, like the bumblebee, move on to the next attractive flower to pollinate.... while women wake up in the morning, pregnant, facing raising a child for many years until it is self-sufficient). As such, they have to look "deeper" then men do. Physical attributes play a role, but are also supplemented by other attributes which a woman feels she wants in her children; e.g. a strong leader, an intelligent man, etc. Some women may seek brains, others brawn. Even then, much of this selection process is subconscious, hence why women are inexplicably drawn to the same type of man repeatedly.
> 
> Men, generally, do not think this way. We do not have to.
> 
> In either case, in most cases, given a choice, men and women collectively are not going to mate with someone they find physically unattractive.
> 
> This is naturally all relative based on many factors. Availability of other, higher-quality mating choices, for example (e.g. the "beggars can't be choosers" paradigm.)
> 
> Denying physical attraction is the fundamental basis of human reproduction is akin to denying the sun is a yellow dwarf main sequence star.


You miss an important point. The depiction of men you give is flat and really only fits the worse case narcissist.

The vast majority of men are looking for a woman who they can not only have sex with, but a mate who will take care of them, meet their emotional needs, and have/raise their children. 

A woman whose only good attribute are her looks is not a good choice for a mate. She might be a good choice for a one night stand.. crazy and good looking often is.

But if a man wants to build a family, he needs to put more into the selection of a mate than going by her looks. Most men do. Most men do not marry the most beautiful woman who they can get. They marry a woman who is, in their estimation the best balance between good looks, their personality, their ability to show love, affection and good sex, their ability to produce and raise child.

A man has to be as careful as a woman in picking a mate. Why? Because if he is not he may not get what he needs in love and family. His children might not survive or be as bat sh!t crazy as the beautiful crazy that they picked. There will be no woman or children there to take care of him as he ages.

Women pick men with the same sort of balance between looks a many other attributes.

Men are not so one dimensional and to suggest that they are is an insult to the billions on very good men on this earth.


----------



## EleGirl

technovelist said:


> So you're not shallow if you exclude men for being "short pudgy [and] balding", as long as that's not all you care about?
> 
> Thanks for clearing that up!


It's not shallow to exclude anyone that one is not attracted to physically.

It would be down right stupid to date/marry someone who one finds repulsive or very unattractive.

No one here is saying that this is shallow, though some seem to want to twist the words of others to mean this.

What I think many are saying is that there are many criteria that a person uses to pick a mate... physical appearance is only one of them.

If a person picked a mate only based on looks they are shallow... because they do not look at the rest of what that person is bringing to the relationship.

For example there are two men one is a 10+ the other is an 8 physically. But Mr. 10+ is an ass/crazy and Mr. 8 is great in all other ways. I find both physically attractive. I'd be crazy to date/marry Mr. 10+. I would pick Mr. 8. 

Why? Not because it's a compromise and I'm taking second best.. nice guy. 

It's because looks are no everything. They count but so do a lot of other things.

I know that it would not be long before Mr. 10+ would no longer appear good looking to me.. he'd become ugly in my eyes. I have this happen with some extremely good looking men I've dated. So I know that it works this way. They become repulsive.

I think that men have the same reaction with the beautiful by crazy type women. It's not long before she's not so attractive any more.


----------



## 2ntnuf

How can one person read the same things as another and get a completely different meaning? 

How can one person post exactly the same things as others and think it's original?


----------



## richardsharpe

Good evening
The majority of me that I know did not use appearance as the primary attribute in the women they married. Surely you have spent enough time in the presence of a boring or selfish, or crazy or depressed, etc etc woman to know that there are things that are a lot more important than beauty. 

Fortunately though there are many types of beauty, many beautiful women. So you don't need to pick appearance OR other qualities, you can get both. 


This evolutionary stuff also ignores that modern western ideas of beauty are not closely related to reproductive success. If men were driven by evolutionary pressure, they would see women with some healthy extra fat to get through lean times, with wide hips for easy child birth, and who were generally of a robust build. (nothing wrong with any of that, but it isn't the most common standard of beauty these days).

Instead the most common idea of beauty is thin to the point of poor health. 

People are not primarily driven by evolutionary pressure. You need to look not further than the number of men who enjoy receiving BJs, (with cannot result in pregnancy) to see that even our preferences for sexual acts are not driven by evolution











Constable Odo said:


> Men and women use different criteria for selecting a mate for procreation. In men, we use physical attributes which suggest to us a woman will be able to successfully bear us many strong sons. Thus, we generally (at a subconscious) level look for physical signs of health and fertility.
> 
> Humans love to think they are "intelligent" and somehow above their base instincts on these issues, but the reality is, much of our lives are rooted in these behaviors evolved over the millennia of human existence.
> 
> Women have a greater investment in the reproductive process (i.e. us men can be "pump and dump" and, like the bumblebee, move on to the next attractive flower to pollinate.... while women wake up in the morning, pregnant, facing raising a child for many years until it is self-sufficient). As such, they have to look "deeper" then men do. Physical attributes play a role, but are also supplemented by other attributes which a woman feels she wants in her children; e.g. a strong leader, an intelligent man, etc. Some women may seek brains, others brawn. Even then, much of this selection process is subconscious, hence why women are inexplicably drawn to the same type of man repeatedly.
> 
> Men, generally, do not think this way. We do not have to.
> 
> In either case, in most cases, given a choice, men and women collectively are not going to mate with someone they find physically unattractive.
> 
> This is naturally all relative based on many factors. Availability of other, higher-quality mating choices, for example (e.g. the "beggars can't be choosers" paradigm.)
> 
> Denying physical attraction is the fundamental basis of human reproduction is akin to denying the sun is a yellow dwarf main sequence star.


----------



## lifeistooshort

richardsharpe said:


> Good evening
> The majority of me that I know did not use appearance as the primary attribute in the women they married. Surely you have spent enough time in the presence of a boring or selfish, or crazy or depressed, etc etc woman to know that there are things that are a lot more important than beauty.
> 
> Fortunately though there are many types of beauty, many beautiful women. So you don't need to pick appearance OR other qualities, you can get both.
> 
> 
> This evolutionary stuff also ignores that modern western ideas of beauty are not closely related to reproductive success. If men were driven by evolutionary pressure, they would see women with some healthy extra fat to get through lean times, with wide hips for easy child birth, and who were generally of a robust build. (nothing wrong with any of that, but it isn't the most common standard of beauty these days).
> 
> Instead the most common idea of beauty is thin to the point of poor health.
> 
> People are not primarily driven by evolutionary pressure. You need to look not further than the number of men who enjoy receiving BJs, (with cannot result in pregnancy) to see that even our preferences for sexual acts are not driven by evolution



Absolutely. In fact, if biology were really the primary driver of mens' preferences this wouldn't be true:

Jena Pincott -- Science Writer -- Author of Do Chocolate Lovers Have Sweeter Babies? -- Do Gentlemen Really Prefer Blondes?

A number of models and celebrities are thought to have this syndrome, it's actually quite common as far as genetic abnormalities go. The one thing that distinguishes it is that women who have this can't get pregnant, so if a woman has been pregnant she doesn't have it. But many who serve as the so called standard of beauty do.

androgen insensitivity syndrome (AIS) is a real thing.


----------



## Constable Odo

This thread is getting a bit off track, so this will likely be my last post on this matter lest I end up in the penalty box for another week for "threadjacking":



lifeistooshort said:


> Absolutely. In fact, if biology were really the primary driver of mens' preferences this wouldn't be true:


An occurrence rate of 2 to 5 per 100k hardly makes this "common", in terms of genetic abnormalities; you're talking 7000 to perhaps as many as 17,500 people in entire population of the US.

However, nothing you've stated goes against my previous points made in this thread and others: that men use visual cues as a basis of mate selection. Thus, a "woman" with AIS which exhibits physical characteristics men would normally be attracted to would still attract men, even though she is infertile. A woman may be infertile yet still exhibit physical signs she is. AIS's may have developed the visual cues of fertility in order to remain camouflaged in their natural habitat, and thus not easy to spot and potentially eradicate at a time when such abnormalities may have been deemed the work of Satan, and thus subject to burning at the stake.




richardsharpe said:


> Good evening
> The majority of me that I know did not use appearance as the primary attribute in the women they married.


Then the men you know are not being honest with you, or, more likely, they are simply not honest with themselves or are ignorant of their subconscious selection process.

What you are likely doing, though, is confusing two separate issues. Google "averageness-effect".

Several studies have been conducted which show the most "attractive" people are the ones that exhibit the most average features. This, when you stop and analyze it, makes perfect sense.

If we were attracted to only the most exceptionally beautiful, the species would die out, due to a limited number of exceptionally beautiful mating choices.

Instead, what we tend to find attractive is average -- this is natures' way of ensuing we reproduce, by giving us an adequate population of potential mating sources.

Thus, when you say your friends did not use "appearance" (by which I assume you mean looks, not how someone presents themselves in terms of dress, etc.), I suspect these men are not conscious of their "averageness" selection process, mentally.

Averageness also does not necessarily equate to the physical cues men use to determine fertility and ability to produce offspring. For example, men (collectively) tend to be more attracted to "curvy" women then anorexic women because the latter are unlikely to have adequate nutrition to produce healthy children.

or, put this another way:

when your male friends go to a bar to meet women, do they simply walk up to the first woman they meet and marry her? 

Of course not. There is another selection process they go through, even if they're not consciously aware of it. 

Otherwise, men would simply procreate with the first woman they encounter.

Rather, they look around, identify potential mates based on criteria of attractiveness, and then go through a courtship ritual during which both male and female learn about one another to determine mating suitability.

The ultimate choice may not be the most "attractive" woman there, because there are other qualifying criteria she does not meet beyond her appearance.


----------



## tech-novelist

EleGirl said:


> It's not shallow to exclude anyone that one is not attracted to physically.
> 
> It would be down right stupid to date/marry someone who one finds repulsive or very unattractive.
> 
> No one here is saying that this is shallow, though some seem to want to twist the words of others to mean this.
> 
> What I think many are saying is that there are many criteria that a person uses to pick a mate... physical appearance is only one of them.
> 
> If a person picked a mate only based on looks they are shallow... because they do not look at the rest of what that person is bringing to the relationship.
> 
> For example there are two men one is a 10+ the other is an 8 physically. But Mr. 10+ is an ass/crazy and Mr. 8 is great in all other ways. I find both physically attractive. I'd be crazy to date/marry Mr. 10+. I would pick Mr. 8.
> 
> Why? Not because it's a compromise and I'm taking second best.. nice guy.
> 
> It's because looks are no everything. They count but so do a lot of other things.
> 
> I know that it would not be long before Mr. 10+ would no longer appear good looking to me.. he'd become ugly in my eyes. I have this happen with some extremely good looking men I've dated. So I know that it works this way. They become repulsive.
> 
> I think that men have the same reaction with the beautiful by crazy type women. It's not long before she's not so attractive any more.


So in other words, it's not shallow to eliminate people who don't meet minimum standards for attractiveness, whatever they may be.

I agree with that.


----------



## chillymorn

shallow is what rejected people say to make themselves feel better.

everybody should have some standards!

I don't care how good your personality is if your obese or an alcholic or any number of things I find unattractive or deal breakers then time to move along. 

with that said personality is the number one variable as to whats important.........at least for me.


----------



## EllisRedding

chillymorn said:


> shallow is what rejected people say to make themselves feel better.
> 
> everybody should have some standards!
> 
> I don't care how good your personality is if your obese or an alcholic or any number of things I find unattractive or deal breakers then time to move along.
> 
> with that said personality is the number one variable as to whats important.........at least for me.


Agreed. For me personality can take someone who I find attractive in the first place, and really just elevate them that much more in my eyes (likewise someone may be very physically attractive at first glance, and then they open their mouths, light up a cig, or something else, and that quickly kills any attraction). If I am not physically attracted to you no amount of personality is going to change that.


----------



## GusPolinski

lifeistooshort said:


> Absolutely. In fact, if biology were really the primary driver of mens' preferences this wouldn't be true:
> 
> Jena Pincott -- Science Writer -- Author of Do Chocolate Lovers Have Sweeter Babies? -- Do Gentlemen Really Prefer Blondes?
> 
> A number of models and celebrities are thought to have this syndrome, it's actually quite common as far as genetic abnormalities go. The one thing that distinguishes it is that women who have this can't get pregnant, so if a woman has been pregnant she doesn't have it. But many who serve as the so called standard of beauty do.
> 
> androgen insensitivity syndrome (AIS) is a real thing.


Wow. Interesting.


----------



## Kitt

Wow, men here really hate women, don't they? This thread is eye opening....I thought this was a marriage forum and it reads like an MRA forum. Yikes...better get out of here....


----------



## Faithful Wife

Kitt said:


> Wow, men here really hate women, don't they? This thread is eye opening....I thought this was a marriage forum and it reads like an MRA forum. Yikes...better get out of here....


Yes a number of men here are also MRA/red pill types. I agree the atmosphere sounds like an MRA forum sometimes.

But you can find lots of posts that don't sound that way. (And you'll find a few of us fighting back against that crap...not that it means you should stay, just sayin').


----------



## Kitt

Faithful Wife said:


> Yes a number of men here are also MRA/red pill types. I agree the atmosphere sounds like an MRA forum sometimes.
> 
> But you can find lots of posts that don't sound that way. (And you'll find a few of us fighting back against that crap...not that it means you should stay, just sayin').


Thank you for your kind words. I was looking at this as a way to strengthen my marriage.....it is really good, but I want to be a better wife. I guess reading this makes me not take him for granted...he is leagues above this sort of stuff...so this does help me be more thankful for him.


----------



## Faithful Wife

Kitt said:


> Thank you for your kind words. I was looking at this as a way to strengthen my marriage.....it is really good, but I want to be a better wife. I guess reading this makes me not take him for granted...he is leagues above this sort of stuff...so this does help me be more thankful for him.


Reading here makes me appreciate my guy so much more, too!


----------



## MountainRunner

Kitt said:


> Wow, men here really hate women, don't they? This thread is eye opening....I thought this was a marriage forum and it reads like an MRA forum. Yikes...better get out of here....


We don't all hate women Kitt. There are those of us who do not prescribe to the red pill/MMSL ideology.


----------



## richardsharpe

Good evening Kitt
there are a wide variety of opinions here and some tendency for like-minded people to cluster in specific threads.

There are some obnoxious people but there are also a lot of reasonable people here (which I of course define as people who think like me :smile2

This sort of thread tends to generate a lot of argument. Others where people are discussing specific problems, not philosophy do better IMHO.




Kitt said:


> Wow, men here really hate women, don't they? This thread is eye opening....I thought this was a marriage forum and it reads like an MRA forum. Yikes...better get out of here....


----------



## RandomDude

Say what? What man hate woman crap? Where? :scratchhead:

Men hate women when they have preferences? 
Sheez! So I guess women with preferences hate men too?

One of the worst types of women to date is a woman that doesn't have a clue what she wants, the result is that she will not be satisfied with you and you won't even have a clue as to why - as she'll be flooding you with false signals of attraction when in the end, she's just not into you. Heck I see it even in some of the stories of MARRIAGES here on TAM. For me, I treat women the way I want to be treated - if I'm not a "fk yes", don't waste my time and let me go cause there's others who actually want to ride me - and hence obviously far more worthy of my attention!

I don't want to be settled for, FK THAT! So I say again, be shallow and be proud!!!


----------



## Thundarr

Most of us have physical preferences or personality preferences and no one thinks twice about it. That is until the preference negates them from being attractive to someone. What matters to me is that I like my preferences. They're not shallow at all to me. And I don't care what anyone else's preferences are.


----------



## Faithful Wife

Kitt didn't mean that because people have preferences it sounds like men hate women around here...she was talking about all the red pill/MRA stuff (I assume, she can correct me if needed). This was why I started the red pill thread, because that stuff does make men sound like they hate women and it gets thrown around a lot here at TAM. Although I do think there's been a bit of improvement lately.


----------



## EllisRedding

Kitt said:


> Wow, men here really hate women, don't they? This thread is eye opening....I thought this was a marriage forum and it reads like an MRA forum. Yikes...better get out of here....


Well, if you go by this rationale then all the women here are man haters ... 

There are guys who have strong opinions about women, and there are women who have strong opinions about guys. Doesn't mean this applies to everyone, or even a majority here ...


----------



## Ripper

Jeez, guess we are going to have to start posting everything with "trigger warnings."


----------



## Kitt

My post wasn't about preferences.....I think we all have those. I was referring to the MRA/red pill stuff and if you didn't post about that...I wasn't referring to you. Sorry, OP, for getting off topic. Back to preferences....I have them and I think it is ok for people to have them especially in dating.


----------



## chillymorn

Kitt said:


> Wow, men here really hate women, don't they? This thread is eye opening....I thought this was a marriage forum and it reads like an MRA forum. Yikes...better get out of here....


HATE

is a pretty strong word!


----------



## Kitt

chillymorn said:


> HATE
> 
> is a pretty strong word!



Yes, it is! I was being a bit facetious. I was very new here when I wrote that....and also had only had the view of a few male posters....after the fact I realized that TAM is made up of some remarkable and insightful men...even the ones I don't generally agree with. :grin2: I apologize for the generalization...it was unkind.


----------



## soccermom2three

What someone finds attractive is what it is. I don't think there's any shame if you find certain traits attractive and certain traits not attractive. That being said, I've known men and women that have super crazy specific traits that they want in a mate. I always thought that was nuts.

I've always wondered why I got asked out way more by guys with blond hair and blue eyes than guys with dark hair and dark eyes.


----------



## chillymorn

Kitt said:


> Yes, it is! I was being a bit facetious. I was very new here when I wrote that....and also had only had the view of a few male posters....after the fact I realized that TAM is made up of some remarkable and insightful men...even the ones I don't generally agree with. :grin2: I apologize for the generalization...it was unkind.


Love 

is another strong word.

I think most people use both of theses words too freely. and as a result they can lose there true meaning.


----------



## Faithful Wife

Love you, chilly.


----------



## RandomDude

Thundarr said:


> Most of us have physical preferences or personality preferences and no one thinks twice about it. That is until the preference negates them from being attractive to someone. What matters to me is that I like my preferences. They're not shallow at all to me. And I don't care what anyone else's preferences are.


Heh, for me, I embrace the accusation of being shallow like a badge of pride, tis a cultural trait of my people actually. To be an instrument of irony I guess.


----------



## tech-novelist

MountainRunner said:


> We don't all hate women Kitt. There are those of us who do not prescribe to the red pill/MMSL ideology.


And there are even people here who DO subscribe to the view presented by MMSL, and also don't hate women. I know it's hard to believe, but there it is.


----------



## always_alone

It strikes me that this thread would benefit from some definitions:

Urban Dictionary: shallow

Shallow: Judging a person based strictly on looks, not factoring in their personality whatsoever.

I liked this little story:


> I was hanging out with my friend the other day who is quite a bit better looking than me (I'm not ugly, he's just hot I guess). So he and I are hanging out with this girl from school and I decide to test something.
> 
> Early that day I tell her a joke and she kind of laughs. So about 6 hours later, I have my friend tell her the exact same joke, word for word and she cracks up like it's the funniest thing she's ever heard.
> 
> Apparently the same exact joke was funnier when told by him, just because he's better looking. Avoid girls/guys like that at all cost.


----------



## Deejo

Rape has absolutely no place in this discussion. None.


----------



## Faithful Wife

Huh? Where was it brought up?


----------



## soccermom2three

Faithful Wife said:


> Huh? Where was it brought up?


He deleted the posts.


----------



## always_alone

RandomDude said:


> Heh, for me, I embrace the accusation of being shallow like a badge of pride, tis a cultural trait of my people actually. To be an instrument of irony I guess.


The real irony here is that you are always criticizing women for being too shallow for you, and frustrated because you are having trouble finding a deeper more meaningful relationship.


----------



## RandomDude

Name one instance where I have criticised a woman for being shallow for her physical standards? Or is that your usual spat of random accusations out of bitterness?

However if you are refering to my frustrations in regards to their materialism - sure. I believe in physical standards, I don't believe in financial standards when it comes to attraction.


----------



## Starstarfish

Why are physical desired traits less "shallow" than financial ones? IE, if you have financial criteria for a mate you are "materialistic" but "shallow is a point if pride for my people."

Both are condition based attraction which in sine ways, is doomed because beauty fades and money can be lost. But I'm not sure how you argue one is a more valid criteria than the other.

Ah, no, this is where someone inevitably brings up importing women from third world countries who are grateful for a roof. Because American women are "spoiled" but American men ... aren't?


----------



## lifeistooshort

RandomDude said:


> Name one instance where I have criticised a woman for being shallow for her physical standards? Or is that your usual spat of random accusations out of bitterness?
> 
> However if you are refering to my frustrations in regards to their materialism - sure. I believe in physical standards, I don't believe in financial standards when it comes to attraction.


So why is it that what you deem important is ok but what others might deem imprudent is not? Does not everyone have the right to decide what their standards are?
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## Wolf1974

I agree. If a guy wants a blonde haired, size 2, double dd chested woman 15 years younger and that's all he will date it's shallow.

If a woman wants a guy who drives a specific kind of car or makes so much money it's shallow.

Both exist

Neither are wrong.

People want what they want I say let them pursue it. If they can't achieve what they want because of the limited criteria they have placed on themselves hey that's on them


----------



## RandomDude

It's because I believe human courtship should be about two people finding each other attractive physically, emotionally, and mentally. Feel free to disagree with this however, ex-GF did too but she's also entitled to her opinion.

I don't believe in financial standards as I've never had them. Financial I can't give two sh-ts about, she can earn half a million a month, or she can earn peanuts, means nothing to me. It's who she is I would be more interested in, rather than how much she can make. 

The idea of finding someone attractive for their wealth is an alien idea to me, so is the idea of inheriting someone else's wealth through courtship. I'm not so sure if this is a difference between male or female or what - the whole justification of females being evolutionary attracted to men who can provide the most and all of these other pseudo-scientific studies.

I just know that I have no financial standards, and if I am to have a partner I desire the same perspective. I might have grown to accept it, if it wasn't for the women that I have met that felt the same way as I have always felt. Guess I'm abit of a romantic, what can I say?



lifeistooshort said:


> So why is it that what you deem important is ok but what others might deem imprudent is not? Does not everyone have the right to decide what their standards are?
> _Posted via Mobile Device_


I never said others are not entitled to their opinion or their standards. Do not imply otherwise.

This is simply MY standard, and I can't accept theirs when it comes to a relationship. As friends, FWBs, whatever - sure, we can agree to disagree. But ex-GF was not the type of woman I wanted beside me.


----------



## always_alone

RandomDude said:


> Name one instance where I have criticised a woman for being shallow for her physical standards? Or is that your usual spat of random accusations out of bitterness?
> 
> However if you are refering to my frustrations in regards to their materialism - sure. I believe in physical standards, I don't believe in financial standards when it comes to attraction.


I wasn't accusing you of anything. I was merely pointing out the irony of your celebration of shallowness, given that your number one frustration in relationships is that the women around you love you for your money, not for who you are.

Of anyone here, I'm most surprised to see you celebrating shallowness. But, I guess, what the hell do I know.


----------



## RandomDude

Wolf1974 said:


> I agree. If a guy wants a blonde haired, size 2, double dd chested woman 15 years younger and that's all he will date it's shallow.


And I say he should be shallow and proud, rather than join the masses who date women they aren't even attracted to, potentially putting them through sexless marriages, affairs, and what not.

All the women I've been with, I compliment genuinely, many didn't even feel beautiful before I approached them. Society upholds many of these set beauty standards when I have my own - beauty once again is in the eye of the beholder.

So I wonder which is the greater or lesser evil here? To lie and decieve a woman who wishes their partner to find them attractive? Or to let her go find someone who will embrace them for who they are?

I choose the evil that I would accept personally, the 'evil' of telling me straight up that I'm not her type, so I don't waste my time.



always_alone said:


> I wasn't accusing you of anything. I was merely pointing out the ironynof your celebration of shallowness, given that your number one frustration in relationships is that the women around you love you for your money, not for who you are.
> 
> Of anyone here, I'm most surprised to see you celebrating shallowness. But, I guess, what the he'll do I know.


Then you obviously did not understand the irony of my comment.

My celebration of "shallowness" is a celebration of the irony - the irony of the accusation of being called shallow for having physical preferences.

Anyway, my apologies for snapping at you early, I took your words as an attack based on the mood on the forum lately.


----------



## tech-novelist

RandomDude said:


> Name one instance where I have criticised a woman for being shallow for her physical standards? Or is that your usual spat of random accusations out of bitterness?
> 
> However if you are refering to my frustrations in regards to their materialism - sure. I believe in physical standards, I don't believe in financial standards when it comes to attraction.


News flash: men and women are different.

Men's "attraction circuits" respond mostly to women's appearance; women's "attraction circuits", as well as responding to appearance, also respond to fame and fortune, as well as other less savory characteristics that account for serial killers getting love letters from women who don't know them.

So it's not a matter of "believing" in standards. They are what they are, and it's equally right (or wrong) to call men and women shallow in what they respond to, even though the stimuli are different.


----------



## EllisRedding

Ellie- said:


> I can appreciate men who know what they like. Having preferences isn't shallow.
> I prefer slender men over... obese men, but you won't see me insulting a guy who is obese. Insulting someone that you personally don't find attractive is shallow, but just for simply having preferences? Nope.
> If I see a man who know what he likes, I tend to think ''hey dude, good on you for knowing what you like! :smthumbup:
> There's no shame in having preferences. You do only get to live once so you might as well know what you like, go after it, put a ring on it and hopefully be happy with the occasional bumps for the rest of your life.
> If men are considered shallow for having preferences, then of course so are women because women have preferences, too. I have a preference for slender, not the ''buff'' type and not a guy who doesn't have a relationship with his shower, toothbrush or washing machine.
> It's all about what you like and it doesn't make you shallow, not in the least.


Exactly, who we are attracted to is not like some sort of switch we can just shut on/off as we please. Similar to your example, I am not attracted to skinny/bony females (rather be with someone who has a little extra on them, within reason, than someone who doesn't have enough). She could be the coolest female on the planet, and in all other aspects could be perfect for me, but if I am not physically attracted to her that is not going to change.

I think where you have to draw the line, is when you start berating someone b/c they don't meet your physical requirements, that is when you become shallow and beyond ...



technovelist said:


> News flash: men and women are different.
> 
> Men's "attraction circuits" respond mostly to women's appearance; women's "attraction circuits", as well as responding to appearance, also respond to fame and fortune, *as well as other less savory characteristics that account for serial killers getting love letters from women who don't know them.*
> .


This reminds me, about a year ago a mug shot was released of a very violent criminal. The reason why it became national news was not b/c of his violent doings, but women kept writing/calling in to find out who this guy was b/c they thought he was hot ...


----------



## tech-novelist

EllisRedding said:


> Exactly, who we are attracted to is not like some sort of switch we can just shut on/off as we please. Similar to your example, I am not attracted to skinny/bony females (rather be with someone who has a little extra on them, within reason, than someone who doesn't have enough). She could be the coolest female on the planet, and in all other aspects could be perfect for me, but if I am not physically attracted to her that is not going to change.
> 
> I think where you have to draw the line, is when you start berating someone b/c they don't meet your physical requirements, that is when you become shallow and beyond ...
> 
> 
> 
> This reminds me, about a year ago a mug shot was released of a very violent criminal. The reason why it became national news was not b/c of his violent doings, but women kept writing/calling in to find out who this guy was b/c they thought he was hot ...


Yep. Notice that there is no corresponding demand from men for information about violent female criminals.


----------



## always_alone

technovelist said:


> Yep. Notice that there is no corresponding demand from men for information about violent female criminals.


No, of course not: 

Hottest Women Ever Accused of Murder | Sexy Female Killers
20 Bad Girls With Smoking Hot Mug Shots
The 10 Hottest Female Criminals - Gents HQ
You Need To See 'Cute Mugshot Girl,' The Latest Hot Criminal

And of course, both men and women have the opportunity to meet the (in)famous:
Meet-An-Inmate.com - Male and Female Inmates Desire Pen pals


----------



## tech-novelist

always_alone said:


> No, of course not:
> 
> Hottest Women Ever Accused of Murder | Sexy Female Killers
> 20 Bad Girls With Smoking Hot Mug Shots
> The 10 Hottest Female Criminals - Gents HQ
> You Need To See 'Cute Mugshot Girl,' The Latest Hot Criminal
> 
> And of course, both men and women have the opportunity to meet the (in)famous:
> Meet-An-Inmate.com - Male and Female Inmates Desire Pen pals


I said *corresponding *demand. Yes, there are sickos of both sexes, but *convicted *male serial killers get *thousands *of love letters from women, e.g., Why Do Murderers Get Mailbags Full of Love Letters and Marriage Proposals? | Alternet. How many love letters do the women get, and how many of them have been convicted of even one murder? I don't see any statistics on those questions.

Furthermore, the women listed are at least *supposed *to be hot, whereas a lot of male serial killers are anything *but *hot and still pull women, e.g., 79-year-old Charles Manson, who has a 25-year-old "girlfriend" (http://www.nydailynews.com/news/nat...79-marry-girlfriend-star-25-article-1.1526791)

So no, you haven't shown that the demand is corresponding.


----------



## Faithful Wife

I can't believe that any of you guys, who seem so intelligent, would think that the eroticization of serial killers has ANYTHING to do with normal, healthy women.

Why is it not obvious that if there are CRAZY people who are serial killers, there are also CRAZY people who are hot for them? They are both anomalies.

That makes just as much sense as normal women studying what serial killer men find attractive. Why would we do this? Who cares what they find attractive, they are insane.

Might as well study what other extremely mentally ill people find attractive and try to apply that to the normal population, too.

I have seen this stupidity bandied about by the red pill crew lots of times. They want to try to make it out that it has something to do with why women like bad boys.

But men like bad GIRLS too, even if most women are not serial killers. The crazier the person is, the crazier who they are attracted to is.

Maybe the better question you guys should be asking yourselves is, why do normal-seeming men go for obviously bat sh*t crazy b*tches? Leave the very very small number of serial killers out of it completely, and those who are attracted to them, because they are not even enough numbers to be statistical. But bat sh*t crazy b*tches are on every corner and so are the bat sh*t crazy dudes who go for them.

But no....we must find a way to make it look like women in general must go for those Dark Triad traits, because red pill.

By the way...if you look a little closer at the "evidence" that women go for Dark Triad traits, you'll find yet again flimsy studies done on very small numbers of women. The one study I looked at was done on 128 women. Men who believe this nonsense is applicable to normal women? I can't get away from you fast enough.

In fact.....there's just too much of it here, it poisons the atmosphere.


----------



## RoseAglow

RandomDude said:


> Then you obviously did not understand the irony of my comment.
> 
> My celebration of "shallowness" is a celebration of the irony - the irony of the accusation of being called shallow for having physical preferences.
> 
> Anyway, my apologies for snapping at you early, I took your words as an attack based on the mood on the forum lately.


Physical Attractiveness is an emotional need for many men (and women, too.) It matters more to some than others.

Financial Support is an emotional need for most women (but seemingly few men...although I suspect that is changing...). This also matters more to some than others.

I think it's fine for someone to have physical preferences, and at the same time I think it's equally fine for someone to have financial preferences. Neither are more "shallow" than the others.

I do think that a person with with a very high emotional need for either one can be vulnerable, though. Some men (and to a lesser extent women) will fall all over themselves for a very hot person and will ignore/forgive all sorts of terrible behavior until it becomes unbearable. Some women (and to a lesser extent, some men) can find themselves trapped if they have a very high need for financial support and as such, have not obtained any skills in case they/their family need to depend on themselves.

A "shallow" person, to me, is someone who doesn't really get beyond the surface of "how hot is s/he" or" how much money does s/he have". 




EllisRedding said:


> This reminds me, about a year ago a mug shot was released of a very violent criminal. The reason why it became national news was not b/c of his violent doings, but women kept writing/calling in to find out who this guy was b/c they thought he was hot ...


That guy- Jeremey Meeks- is as objectively hot as you're going to get. Not all women will find him hot but most will.This pic shows his mug shot photo-shopped into a fake ad. The Calvin Klein Ad could be legit. The guy has the eyes, jaw, cheekbones, symmetry, etc. 









So while there may be some who thought he was hot because he is a convict....I think most women just took a look and thought "NICE!" You'd get the same reaction if he looked like Bradley Cooper or any other hot guy.

Women are not the only ones who can be swayed by a physically attractive criminal. I remember seeing an episode of "What Would You Do", where they had three scenarios of a person stealing a bike in the park. They had a white guy, a black guy, and a hot white woman. The girl asks for help to cut a chain so she can steal a bike, and some guys offered to help her, LOL. No one offered to help either of the guys. 

I found it here on YouTube- the scenario with the woman starts at 6:40.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8ABRlWybBqM


(It doesn't matter how "hot" Jeremy Meeks is, personally I wouldn't want to get anywhere near him. Convicts are not my preference. There are women who dig them, but it's a small percentage of the population. It's considered a paraphilia, a perversion or sexual deviation.)


----------



## RandomDude

RoseAglow said:


> Women are not the only ones who can be swayed by a physically attractive criminal. I remember seeing an episode of "What Would You Do", where they had three scenarios of a person stealing a bike in the park. They had a white guy, a black guy, and a hot white woman. The girl asks for help to cut a chain so she can steal a bike, and some guys offered to help her, LOL. No one offered to help either of the guys.
> 
> I found it here on YouTube- the scenario with the woman starts at 6:40.
> 
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8ABRlWybBqM


:rofl:

CLASSIC!!!!!!!


----------



## EllisRedding

RoseAglow said:


> That guy- Jeremey Meeks- is as objectively hot as you're going to get. Not all women will find him hot but most will.This pic shows his mug shot photo-shopped into a fake ad. The Calvin Klein Ad could be legit. The guy has the eyes, jaw, cheekbones, symmetry, etc.


Ah yes, that was the person. I have seen similar things done for females as well where "attractive" mugshots are posted.

On a side note, I find it interesting that a certain poster keeps bringing up Red Pill when no one else has and this thread has nothing to do with Red Pill ... this person keeps championing against it ... which is ironic when this person probably most frequently references it


----------



## RandomDude

She's on a crusade! lol

Well you know how to lure her into any thread:









Nurofen liquid capsules, better watch out!


----------



## RoseAglow

Well, in FW's defense, it's annoying to have to something like women who have a fetish for criminals brought up as a demonstration of anything regarding normal women. It just doesn't apply. It would be like arguing that in general, men are masochistic and value power over those who are weaker, based on the fact that there are pedophiles and rapists and that by percentage, the vast majority are men. She can, of course, correct me if I am misunderstanding her on this.


----------



## EllisRedding

RoseAglow said:


> Well, in FW's defense, it's annoying to have to something like women who have a fetish for criminals brought up as a demonstration of anything regarding normal women. It just doesn't apply. It would be like arguing that in general, men are masochistic and value power over those who are weaker, based on the fact that there are pedophiles and rapists and that by percentage, the vast majority are men. She can, of course, correct me if I am misunderstanding her on this.


Actually no issues with your points at all ... I was simply pointing out the irony in what was written, nothing against you Rose.


----------



## Thundarr

RoseAglow said:


> (It doesn't matter how "hot" Jeremy Meeks is, personally I wouldn't want to get anywhere near him. Convicts are not my preference. There are women who dig them, but it's a small percentage of the population. It's considered a paraphilia, a perversion or sexual deviation.)


The attention this guy gets based on his physical appearance is a curse for him. It sure won't help him change for the better. Not when so many are willing to turn a blind eye to anything and everything he does. I think exceptionally good looking men and women need good parents and mentors to guide them more than the normal person.


----------



## NobodySpecial

RoseAglow said:


> *Financial Support* is an emotional need for *most *women


----------



## Starstarfish

This is why it's hard for me to take the recommendation for HNHN seriously. Because the "financial security/financial support" aspect of that is brushed off, diminished, or straight criticized. Men know what they want, and if you know, praise yourself for being so self-knowledgeable - but women - you don't -really- understand what it is you -really- want, let us mansplain to you how women -really- work.


----------



## samyeagar

Starstarfish said:


> This is why it's hard for me to take the recommendation for HNHN seriously. Because the "financial security/financial support" aspect of that is brushed off, diminished, or straight criticized. Men know what they want, and if you know, praise yourself for being so self-knowledgeable - but women - you don't -really- understand what it is you -really- want, let us mansplain to you how women -really- work.


Not everything applies to everyone. In the case of HNHN, the questionnaires have been given and taken by a whole bunch of people over the course of many years, so there is a pretty solid footing for the gender differences and generalized needs based on self reporting.

Part of the reason the questionnaire was even developed is to help individual couples address individual needs in their relationship, but that in no way negates the general trends found.


----------



## RoseAglow

One of the things I like about Marriage Builders is that the author, Dr. Harley, is accessible. He and his wife run an internet radio program and you can ask them questions.

I also used to take offense to the "Financial Support" issue and I emailed them about it. What Dr H said back made a lot of sense to me.

I emailed him because I didn't believe I had a need for Financial Support. I am a career woman, I have zero need for anyone to pay my way. I am highly invested in my work, I make a nice enough salary that I could support myself and my son, and even my husband, if needed. One of my greatest fears is becoming ill or disabled losing my ability to be self-supporting.

That said- I am also not a woman who would be comfortable fully supporting my husband. I don't need him to make a lot of money, but I need him to be a contributor. I am happiest in a relationship that works as a partnership, financially and otherwise. I don't financially support my husband, he doesn't financially support me, but together we contribute and build our life/family/finances together.

Paraphrasing Dr. Harley, what he said was that anyone who feels better when their spouse is contributing financially has a need at some level for what he calls "financial support". 

He also pointed out that people can have the same need but at different levels. He suggested that for me, I probably have a low level of need for Financial Support, but it still exists. There are other people who have a much higher need. There others who have no need at all. 

I know a few women who really seem to have no need for financial support at all. They have SAHDs and it works for them. 

Dr. Harley also pointed out that people can have the same emotional need, but prefer it to be expressed differently. For instance, many women have an EN of affection, but some love foot rubs whereas others can't stand to have their feet touched and much prefer to hold hands. 

Akin to FS, some women prefer their husband to pay all the bills, so that the money the woman makes is "her money", "pin" money, whereas other women (like myself) prefer all finances to go into the same pot. And there are other scenarios as well.

One of my questions in the email that didn't get addressed was, "Do you see more men with a need for Financial Support now?" There are many who have zero need for FS. However, I think there definitely are some men who have it.

My husband has it. He has told me that he doesn't really care how much I make, as long as I am willing to work and contribute and be a partner. He and I share the same perspective here. I've seen men on TAM who really want their wives to start working once the kids are in school, they don't want all the finances to fall on their shoulders. To me, that is a demonstration of the need for Financial Support.


----------



## RoseAglow

samyeagar said:


> Not everything applies to everyone. In the case of HNHN, the questionnaires have been given and taken by a whole bunch of people over the course of many years, so there is a pretty solid footing for the gender differences and generalized needs based on self reporting.
> 
> *Part of the reason the questionnaire was even developed is to help individual couples address individual needs in their relationship, but that in no way negates the general trends found*.


Dr. Harley is always careful to point out that each individual is different. One of the first things he addressed with my question was why I felt the need to email in the first place- he stated that in his research, the TREND is for the majority of women to have this need, but that not every individual woman will have it.


----------



## samyeagar

I think some people equate the idea of a need with some sort of personal deficiency, weakness, or criticism, which leads to defensiveness. That, I think gets to the very heart of the broader subject of this thread...the very word "shallow" is more often than not used, to almost exclusively as a pejorative, to shame a person.


----------



## EllisRedding

Financial support is always an interesting topic when it comes to 2 people. When my wife and I first got married, we both worked and made about the same. The way we handled finances, we had our own bank accounts and a joint account. Each paycheck we would both pay into the joint account whatever we calculated was each of our share of the household bills (very simple math, if we both made the same we each paid in 50%). Whatever was left in our own personal accounts was ours to do as we pleased. This worked great for us, we never had arguments over money, took care of all our house bills but could still buy something we wanted without having to check with the other person. As my salary grew past hers my % of the bills increased as well. I know others at TAM would probably be against this way of managing, but IMO it is the best as long as you can manage it properly (and honestly).

At this point though, my wife just recently became a SAHM (it would cost us to have her work). At first she was a little uneasy about having to rely solely on my paycheck (not from a security standpoint as we are perfectly fine, but just more personal) but in the end it is the best for us and our family.

When my daughter finally starts school (the older two boys are already in), I am not sure what we will do. Unless things change with my job there is zero need for her to work. Plus, even with the kids at school we still need someone to get them on the bus at different times, get them off the bus at different times, afterschool activities, etc... I can't imagine paying someone else to do this, but I will leave a big part of this up to my wife if she really feels like she needs to get back out there. For now we just wait and see.


----------



## Faithful Wife

EllisRedding said:


> Actually no issues with your points at all ... I was simply pointing out the irony in what was written, nothing against you Rose.


Ellis, the red pill gang are the ones who tell each other that women being attracted to serial killers "means something" about women's attraction...the whole Dark Triad thing is a red pill agenda. There are numerous blog posts and articles about this by red pill men, of which technovelist is one such reader and he is the one who brought it up...which is why I responded to it.

However...given that you and a few others around here just can't hold back from bashing me any chance you can get, I'll make it easier for you and disappear.


----------



## RoseAglow

Faithful Wife said:


> Ellis, the red pill gang are the ones who tell each other that women being attracted to serial killers "means something" about women's attraction...the whole Dark Triad thing is a red pill agenda. There are numerous blog posts and articles about this by red pill men, of which technovelist is one such reader and he is the one who brought it up...which is why I responded to it.
> 
> However...given that you and a few others around here just can't hold back from bashing me any chance you can get, I'll make it easier for you and disappear.


FW, I hope you reconsider and that you stick around!!


----------



## GusPolinski

RoseAglow said:


> Physical Attractiveness is an emotional need for many men (and women, too.) It matters more to some than others.
> 
> Financial Support is an emotional need for most women (but seemingly few men...although I suspect that is changing...). This also matters more to some than others.
> 
> I think it's fine for someone to have physical preferences, and at the same time I think it's equally fine for someone to have financial preferences. Neither are more "shallow" than the others.
> 
> I do think that a person with with a very high emotional need for either one can be vulnerable, though. Some men (and to a lesser extent women) will fall all over themselves for a very hot person and will ignore/forgive all sorts of terrible behavior until it becomes unbearable. Some women (and to a lesser extent, some men) can find themselves trapped if they have a very high need for financial support and as such, have not obtained any skills in case they/their family need to depend on themselves.
> 
> A "shallow" person, to me, is someone who doesn't really get beyond the surface of "how hot is s/he" or" how much money does s/he have".
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That guy- Jeremey Meeks- is as objectively hot as you're going to get. Not all women will find him hot but most will.This pic shows his mug shot photo-shopped into a fake ad. The Calvin Klein Ad could be legit. The guy has the eyes, jaw, cheekbones, symmetry, etc.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So while there may be some who thought he was hot because he is a convict....I think most women just took a look and thought "NICE!" You'd get the same reaction if he looked like Bradley Cooper or any other hot guy.
> 
> Women are not the only ones who can be swayed by a physically attractive criminal. I remember seeing an episode of "What Would You Do", where they had three scenarios of a person stealing a bike in the park. They had a white guy, a black guy, and a hot white woman. The girl asks for help to cut a chain so she can steal a bike, and some guys offered to help her, LOL. No one offered to help either of the guys.
> 
> I found it here on YouTube- the scenario with the woman starts at 6:40.
> 
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8ABRlWybBqM
> 
> 
> (It doesn't matter how "hot" Jeremy Meeks is, personally I wouldn't want to get anywhere near him. Convicts are not my preference. There are women who dig them, but it's a small percentage of the population. It's considered a paraphilia, a perversion or sexual deviation.)


FWIW, many of his fellow convicts probably think that he's pretty hot as well.


----------



## EllisRedding

Faithful Wife said:


> Ellis, the red pill gang are the ones who tell each other that women being attracted to serial killers "means something" about women's attraction...the whole Dark Triad thing is a red pill agenda. There are numerous blog posts and articles about this by red pill men, of which technovelist is one such reader and he is the one who brought it up...which is why I responded to it.
> 
> However...given that you and a few others around here just can't hold back from bashing me any chance you can get, I'll make it easier for you and disappear.



So pretty much anywhere Tech posts you will stalk him and respond with Red Pill ... makes sense ...

Funny enough, I am still waiting for your response to the other thread where you tried to call me out for "bashing you" but was proven your lack of reading comprehension resulted in you being 100% wrong. So who is bashing who again??? As usual though, go hide and play the victim card ...


----------



## Thundarr

RoseAglow said:


> Paraphrasing Dr. Harley, what he said was that anyone who feels better when their spouse is contributing financially has a need at some level for what he calls "financial support".


To me that was clear after reading 'his needs/her needs'. I think we too often search for snippets in a book that offend us rather than using the context and general message of the full material.


----------



## Holland

EllisRedding said:


> So pretty much anywhere Tech posts you will stalk him and respond with Red Pill ... makes sense ...
> 
> Funny enough, I am still waiting for your response to the other thread where you tried to call me out for "bashing you" but was proven your lack of reading comprehension resulted in you being 100% wrong. So who is bashing who again??? As usual though, go hide and play the victim card ...


Hello, you never replied to my question in another thread as to why you "bashed" me and accused me of being a "man hater" simply because I don't like misogynists. 
That's the world of forums, you are upset because someone has done something to you that you yourself have done. Good job


----------



## Holland

Financial issues are interesting. I do not date/marry men that are not financially well off. I don't want to be supported but I have a high nett worth so need an equal. Maybe it is shallow but I would never financially support a man.


----------



## Thundarr

Holland said:


> Financial issues are interesting. I do not date/marry men that are not financially well off. I don't want to be supported but I have a high nett worth so need an equal. Maybe it is shallow but I would never financially support a man.


Shallow is in the eye of the beholder Holland. What matters is that your preferences and boundaries make sense to you and if they don't feel right then you're capable of analysing them. We all have our own context to work with and we know more details than anyone looking from the outside.


----------



## tech-novelist

RoseAglow said:


> One of the things I like about Marriage Builders is that the author, Dr. Harley, is accessible. He and his wife run an internet radio program and you can ask them questions.
> 
> I also used to take offense to the "Financial Support" issue and I emailed them about it. What Dr H said back made a lot of sense to me.
> 
> ...
> 
> One of my questions in the email that didn't get addressed was, "Do you see more men with a need for Financial Support now?" There are many who have zero need for FS. However, I think there definitely are some men who have it.
> 
> My husband has it. He has told me that he doesn't really care how much I make, as long as I am willing to work and contribute and be a partner. He and I share the same perspective here. I've seen men on TAM who really want their wives to start working once the kids are in school, they don't want all the finances to fall on their shoulders. To me, that is a demonstration of the need for Financial Support.


I don't have that need, as such. Now, if my income was not sufficient for us to live at a reasonable standard, then I would probably say to my wife "If you want a higher standard of living, then you will have to get a job". 

Fortunately, we are not in that situation. I am still working after "normal" retirement age because I want to build up our savings rather than start drawing them down, but I won't put up with any crap at work because I don't HAVE to work.


----------



## tech-novelist

EllisRedding said:


> So pretty much anywhere Tech posts you will stalk him and respond with Red Pill ... makes sense ...
> 
> Funny enough, I am still waiting for your response to the other thread where you tried to call me out for "bashing you" but was proven your lack of reading comprehension resulted in you being 100% wrong. So who is bashing who again??? As usual though, go hide and play the victim card ...


I'm so hurt by her being mean to me! :crying:
(Note: :wink2


----------



## Thundarr

technovelist said:


> I don't have that need, as such. Now, if my income was not sufficient for us to live at a reasonable standard, then I would probably say to my wife "If you want a higher standard of living, then you will have to get a job".
> 
> Fortunately, we are not in that situation. I am still working after "normal" retirement age because I want to build up our savings rather than start drawing them down, *but I won't put up with any crap at work because I don't HAVE to work.*


First off I will work until I can't as you are so kudos or whatever. But secondly I hope you're not one of those guys who tells everyone you work with that you don't have to put up with crap because you don't have to. Don't be *THAT* guy.


----------



## tech-novelist

Thundarr said:


> First off I will work until I can't as you are so kudos or whatever. But secondly I hope you're not one of those guys who tells everyone you work with that you don't have to put up with crap because you don't have to. Don't be *THAT* guy.


No, I haven't told anyone at work that I could quit if I wanted to. It's just good to know that I could, if and when things get too irritating at work.

At this point, the main annoyance with my job is that I can't spend that time working on my personal project, so I can only work on the latter after hours. My work week is about 70 hours at present, 40 for my job and 30 for my own project. I'd like to cut back to just work on my own project, but I look at my job as "self-financing" of my project without having to dip into my retirement savings.


----------



## always_alone

I find this thread rather mind-boggling. So no one thinks anyone is ever shallow, and if they are,so what, it's never ever a problem because whoever we want or chase after is always a-okay? There isn't a soul in the universe who might benefit from re-examining their priorities?

I dunno, I've seen all kinds of people make stupid choices because they only looked at the surface. Some even realized it and learned from it.


----------



## EllisRedding

Holland said:


> Hello, you never replied to my question in another thread as to why you "bashed" me and accused me of being a "man hater" simply because I don't like misogynists.
> That's the world of forums, you are upset because someone has done something to you that you yourself have done. Good job


The only time I recall posting back and forth with you was in one of those Red Pill threads that moved a mile a minute. I don't recall seeing your post, but I would gladly respond if you point me to it. I actually don't mind being accountable or explaining why I said something.


----------



## Pluto2

always_alone said:


> I find this thread rather mind-boggling. So no one thinks anyone is ever shallow, and if they are,so what, it's never ever a problem because whoever we want or chase after is always a-okay? There isn't a soul in the universe who might benefit from re-examining their priorities?
> 
> I dunno, I've seen all kinds of people make stupid choices because they only looked at the surface. Some even realized it and learned from it.


I think you've made a good point. Lots of people are shallow and refuse to admit it, or even consider it. They are perfectly happy to remove any responsibility for their own choices by saying "science". Whatever. I have no control over the genes I received from my great-grandparents that governs my general physical appearance, but I retain complete control over the human I am. I would prefer to be with a partner who understands the difference.


----------



## Thundarr

always_alone said:


> I find this thread rather mind-boggling. So no one thinks anyone is ever shallow, and if they are,so what, it's never ever a problem because whoever we want or chase after is always a-okay? There isn't a soul in the universe who might benefit from re-examining their priorities?
> 
> I dunno, I've seen all kinds of people make stupid choices because they only looked at the surface. Some even realized it and learned from it.


 It's a far stretch to make being shallow a synonym with making poor choices in general or being irresponsible. When I see someone I care about making poor choices then I'm worried about the poor choices. Rarely is shallowness any part of the issue.

This thread is specific to physical preferences. When we were growing up I remember that my brother really didn't like cankles. That's the context of shallow in this thread. Why would I try to force him to get over his cankle aversion?


----------



## RoseAglow

always_alone said:


> I find this thread rather mind-boggling. So no one thinks anyone is ever shallow, and if they are,so what, it's never ever a problem because whoever we want or chase after is always a-okay? There isn't a soul in the universe who might benefit from re-examining their priorities?
> 
> I dunno, I've seen all kinds of people make stupid choices because they only looked at the surface. Some even realized it and learned from it.


I think there is a difference between being shallow and having preferences. We all have preferences. I think one is shallow if one's few preferences outweigh all other considerations.

For instance: most people want a partner who they find physically attractive. But some for some people, it is the only thing that matters. They will ignore all types of terrible behaviors to be with someone who is super hot. Same thing who is only focused on how much money a person has. 

Someone who is focused primarily or only on one item is shallow, and it usually leads to all kinds of misery.


----------



## EllisRedding

RoseAglow said:


> I think there is a difference between being shallow and having preferences. We all have preferences. I think one is shallow if one's few preferences outweigh all other considerations.
> 
> For instance: most people want a partner who they find physically attractive. But some for some people, it is the only thing that matters. They will ignore all types of terrible behaviors to be with someone who is super hot. Same thing who is only focused on how much money a person has.
> 
> Someone who is focused primarily or only on one item is shallow, and it usually leads to all kinds of misery.


I agree with you, but let's say you find an absolutely awesome person (in terms of personality, etc...) but for one reason or another you have no physical attraction to them. Does that make you shallow for not pursuing that person?


----------



## RoseAglow

EllisRedding said:


> I agree with you, but let's say you find an absolutely awesome person (in terms of personality, etc...) but for one reason or another you have no physical attraction to them. Does that make you shallow for not pursuing that person?


Ellis, all of my friends are totally awesome people. But I don't have a physical attraction for them. I can even objectively say, "s/he is hot!!" but not have that pull. Physical attraction is what moves a friendship over into romance.

For me, physical attraction is "necessary but not sufficient." 

I think a person is shallow when one or maybe two items are "necessary and sufficient." So hot and willing to have sex would outweigh other items (like alcohol addiction, emotional instability, or other red flags.)


----------



## EllisRedding

RoseAglow said:


> Ellis, all of my friends are totally awesome people. But I don't have a physical attraction for them. I can even objectively say, "s/he is hot!!" but not have that pull. Physical attraction is what moves a friendship over into romance.
> 
> For me, physical attraction is "necessary but not sufficient."
> 
> I think a person is shallow when one or maybe two items are "necessary and sufficient." So hot and willing to have sex would outweigh other items (like alcohol addiction, emotional instability, or other red flags.)


Do you give different weight to what those one or two items may be? Perfect example, some people have stated they can't stand tattoos on a person. That may be the only item you don't like about a person, but it may very well just be something you can't look past, it kills any physical attraction. Not having tattoos would seem to fit in with your description of "necessary and sufficient", unless maybe I am reading differently.


----------



## RoseAglow

EllisRedding said:


> Do you give different weight to what those one or two items may be? Perfect example, some people have stated they can't stand tattoos on a person. That may be the only item you don't like about a person, but it may very well just be something you can't look past, it kills any physical attraction. Not having tattoos would seem to fit in with your description of "necessary and sufficient", unless maybe I am reading differently.


By "necessary and sufficient", I mean that "it (looks, money) must be there, and it (looks, money) is all it takes ." 

So a stereotype here would be the young guy who goes for the hottest woman he can get, and her hotness is the only thing that matters- there are no other factors to consider. This is different than a guy who values physical attractiveness and also has other considerations (fidelity, kindness, etc.) 


Or, we have a woman who goes for the wealthiest guy she can get, and his wealth is the only thing that matters. Nothing else matters. This is different than a woman who values financial security, and also has other considerations (fidelity, kindness, etc.)

So for tattoos, it would be "shallow" if all the person cared about was whether or not the other person had tattoos. 

In your scenario, I think tattoos might be considered more of a deal-breaker. Like, "she ticks all of my boxes except this one, and this one is a major item." To me, that is not shallow.

To me, shallow would be: "Yes, she has been divorced three times and isn't quite 30, she can't hold a job, she doesn't have long term friends, she has a terrible temper- but so what? She is incredibly hot and acts like a porn star in bed. I am going to marry that woman!" 

Or, "Yeah, he has a lot of women around him constantly. He doesn't always call when he says he will. He ignores me when there is a hotter woman in the room. On the other hand- he is wealthy, I will never have to work, he bought me a Benz. I can deal with the other stuff."


----------



## EllisRedding

Thanks Rose, makes sense.


----------



## RoseAglow

Thundarr said:


> It's a far stretch to make being shallow a synonym with making poor choices in general or being irresponsible. When I see someone I care about making poor choices then I'm worried about the poor choices. Rarely is shallowness any part of the issue.
> 
> This thread is specific to physical preferences. When we were growing up I remember that my brother really didn't like cankles. That's the context of shallow in this thread. Why would I try to force him to get over his cankle aversion?


I don't know- I think shallow people get themselves into all sorts of trouble and ultimately end up with a lot of heartbreak in their lives. 

I've been thinking mostly that someone who is shallow is someone who only cares about one or two items, but the other part of that is- what exactly are the one or two items? I think this might be more along the lines of what Ellis was asking?

If a woman has had a rough time and is now only looking for someone who is kind, is she shallow? A woman who is willing to overlook a guy's physical attractiveness, his ability (or lack thereof to bring in an income), his (maybe crazy/interfering) family, because he is kind- I can't consider her a shallow woman. 

So another thing about shallow people is that they are only really concerned about "surface" items. Physical attractiveness and wealth are "surface" items, they are external items and not internal characteristics.

To bring it back to the original question- I would consider your brother shallow if he made his decisions about women based solely on whether or not she had "cankles". But, to each his own. 

At the same time, I think that is pretty common for a young guy. I would be very surprised if your brother, as an adult, made decisions about women based off the look of her ankles.


----------



## richardsharpe

Good evening
I like Rose's definition, but I might add that I don't consider it shallow if someone has really thought things through. Someone who marries just for wealth might not be shallow if they are completely honest with themselves that that is what they are doing. That they don't later complain that the person they married for money doesn't have any other desirable qualities.

To me "shallow" includes some amount of self deception. It is someone who is clueless enough to believe that they will be happiest with the most attractive partner, and don't realize that for almost everyone there are a whole lot of other important qualities.


----------



## samyeagar

I also think this entire discussion would have a different feel to it if the term "shallow" had a neutral meaning and connotation instead of a negative one. What is inherently wrong with being shallow? Yes, it increases the possibility of negative consequences, but what makes it so wrong?


----------



## RoseAglow

samyeagar said:


> I also think this entire discussion would have a different feel to it if the term "shallow" had a neutral meaning and connotation instead of a negative one. What is inherently wrong with being shallow? Yes, it increases the possibility of negative consequences, but what makes it so wrong?


My take on it: it wouldn't be "wrong" if it didn't have such negative consequences. 

But, in addition to often leading to poor choices, it really limits a person. Maybe it's a self-selection bias, but most people who I considered "shallow" were young people, back when I was also young. As an adult, I don't think I know anyone who I would consider "shallow'. I think it's because once you have lived for a while, life experience "deepens" us. A person who was shallow in youth has likely already started to feel the effects by the time they are in their 40s (my current age group) and have started to have a change in values.


----------



## lifeistooshort

samyeagar said:


> I also think this entire discussion would have a different feel to it if the term "shallow" had a neutral meaning and connotation instead of a negative one. What is inherently wrong with being shallow? Yes, it increases the possibility of negative consequences, but what makes it so wrong?


That's an interesting point. I know I don't care who is shallow or who has what criteria, though I'll admit to being slightly annoyed when one demands what they cant give. Like they're a 4 but are somehow still entitled to a 10.

What really annoys me though is when people use shallow criteria and then b!tch when they get a poor partner, whether it's a cheating partner or a partner who treats them badly. In my mind if your only criteria was that they turned you on then you have no right to complain if they turn out to be a sh!tty partner.

If you want a good, faithful partner then factor these qualities into your choice. Simply getting a younger hotter partner (like hurt men are frequently advised to do here) does nothing to up the chances you're getting a good partner. We're all culpable for our choices.

I'm annoyed by the idea here in TAM that men in particular are entitled to hook up with 18 year olds or whoever happens to get them off with no consideration for anything else but are then huge victims when said choice does them wrong. 
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## tech-novelist

always_alone said:


> I find this thread rather mind-boggling. So no one thinks anyone is ever shallow, and if they are,so what, it's never ever a problem because whoever we want or chase after is always a-okay? There isn't a soul in the universe who might benefit from re-examining their priorities?
> 
> I dunno, I've seen all kinds of people make stupid choices because they only looked at the surface. Some even realized it and learned from it.


No, the question seems to be whether it is fair to say that men are shallow because they respond mostly to physical appearance, but women aren't shallow because they also respond to financial and other status markers.


----------



## RoseAglow

richardsharpe said:


> Good evening
> I like Rose's definition, but I might add that I don't consider it shallow if someone has really thought things through. Someone who marries just for wealth might not be shallow if they are completely honest with themselves that that is what they are doing. That they don't later complain that the person they married for money doesn't have any other desirable qualities.
> 
> *To me "shallow" includes some amount of self deception. It is someone who is clueless enough to believe that they will be happiest with the most attractive partner, and don't realize that for almost everyone there are a whole lot of other important qualities*.


I agree, especially with the bold. By definition "shallow" is someone who doesn't have any depth. This is a person who might be interested in his/her Self's reflection, but not really willing/able to do any deeper thinking. They don't see past the immediate to recognize the other important qualities.


----------



## coffee4me

lifeistooshort said:


> What really annoys me though is when people use shallow criteria and then b!tch when they get a poor partner, whether it's a cheating partner or a partner who treats them badly. In my mind if your only criteria was that they turned you on then you have no right to complain if they turn out to be a sh!tty partner.


What really annoys me is when the person chooses a partner based on shallow criteria but the partner thought they were chosen for deeper reasons like love and end up getting hurt. Feeling used for your body, status, money, youth etc is a crappy feeling. 

I think it's fine to choose a partner based on any criteria could be deep and meaningful, could be business, could be based on looks alone as long as both parties are aware of the basis of the attraction. So if a woman marries a man she knows is only into her for looks then she will understand when he trades her in for a younger, fresher looking woman.


----------



## tech-novelist

coffee4me said:


> What really annoys me is when the person chooses a partner based on shallow criteria but the partner thought they were chosen for deeper reasons like love and end up getting hurt. Feeling used for your body, status, money, youth etc is a crappy feeling.
> 
> I think it's fine to choose a partner based on any criteria could be deep and meaningful, could be business, could be based on looks alone as long as both parties are aware of the basis of the attraction. So if a woman marries a man she knows is only into her for looks then she will understand when he trades her in for a younger, fresher looking woman.


Yes, especially when she takes him to the cleaners in the divorce.

You did know that most divorces are initiated by the woman, didn't you?


----------



## lifeistooshort

coffee4me said:


> What really annoys me is when the person chooses a partner based on shallow criteria but the partner thought they were chosen for deeper reasons like love and end up getting hurt. Feeling used for your body, status, money, youth etc is a crappy feeling.
> 
> I think it's fine to choose a partner based on any criteria could be deep and meaningful, could be business, could be based on looks alone as long as both parties are aware of the basis of the attraction. So if a woman marries a man she knows is only into her for looks then she will understand when he trades her in for a younger, fresher looking woman.



Absolutely. And let's not forget the ones that pick a woman for her looks and use their money to attract her because they're not at her level physically but then b!tch that she's a gold digger. So he can pick her l her for her looks but she must want him for him. 

He expects her to judge him on different criteria then he judges her. 

If you choose a partner based on shallow criteria don't complain when you get a shallow partner.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## lifeistooshort

technovelist said:


> Yes, especially when she takes him to the cleaners in the divorce.
> 
> You did know that most divorces are initiated by the woman, didn't you?


You know, for a supposed actuarial trainee I'd expect you to have a better grasp of how to interpret data. The fact that women file implies nothing about whether her hb was faithful, treated her well or otherwise held up his end of the bargain.

Does this mean that I can cut my hb off from sex, cheat, or otherwise be a sh!tty wife and if he files it's really his fault? 

Too much red pill for you methinks. 

If you don't want to be responsible for a wife financially then choose one that's career minded.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## lifeistooshort

technovelist said:


> No, the question seems to be whether it is fair to say that men are shallow because they respond mostly to physical appearance, but women aren't shallow because they also respond to financial and other status markers.


Red pill crap. Women who choose a husband solely based on his finances can't b!tch of he turns out to be a lousy partner. Everyone is entitled to have certain standards..... nobody is going to get on you just because you'd like am attractive wife. I like that I have an attractive hb, but I considered a lot of things when I chose him. If you consider the person you're getting on some level there should be no problem.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## tech-novelist

lifeistooshort said:


> You know, for a supposed actuarial trainee I'd expect you to have a better grasp of how to interpret data. The fact that women file implies nothing about whether her hb was faithful, treated her well or otherwise held up his end of the bargain.
> 
> Does this mean that I can cut my hb off from sex, cheat, or otherwise be a sh!tty wife and if he files it's really his fault?
> 
> Too much red pill for you methinks.
> 
> If you don't want to be responsible for a wife financially then choose one that's career minded.
> _Posted via Mobile Device_


I was referring to the theory that it is men who are responsible for divorce because they want to trade their wives in on a younger model. This theory doesn't fit the facts, which are that the frequency of divorce goes DOWN with advancing age, not UP. Obviously if it were the men trading in their wives on a younger model, it would be the opposite.

Hope that helps.


----------



## coffee4me

technovelist said:


> Yes, especially when she takes him to the cleaners in the divorce.
> 
> You did know that most divorces are initiated by the woman, didn't you?


I was the primary breadwinner in my former marriage so I don't usually think about men being the only ones taken to the cleaners. I just think of it as the higher earner pays. 

I thought most divorces were initiated by women because they are better at paperwork and more decisive


----------



## tech-novelist

lifeistooshort said:


> Red pill crap. Women who choose a husband solely based on his finances can't b!tch of he turns out to be a lousy partner. Everyone is entitled to have certain standards..... nobody is going to get on you just because you'd like am attractive wife. I like that I have an attractive hb, but I considered a lot of things when I chose him. If you consider the person you're getting on some level there should be no problem.
> _Posted via Mobile Device_


Agreed on all counts. Other than the "Red pill crap" comment, of course.


----------



## tech-novelist

coffee4me said:


> I was the primary breadwinner in my former marriage so I don't usually think about men being the only ones taken to the cleaners. I just think of it as the higher earner pays.
> 
> I thought most divorces were initiated by women because they are better at paperwork and more decisive


Of course there are exceptions, but IIRC, about 90% of the time it is the man who pays in a divorce.


----------



## coffee4me

technovelist said:


> I was referring to the theory that it is men who are responsible for divorce because they want to trade their wives in on a younger model. This theory doesn't fit the facts, which are that the frequency of divorce goes DOWN with advancing age, not UP. Obviously if it were the men trading in their wives on a younger model, it would be the opposite.
> 
> Hope that helps.


That was just an example of someone who is choosing based on looks. Another example could easily be that a woman who chooses based on wealth would trade her husband in for a wealthier man. 

The point was that if choosing based on shallow criteria its best if both parties know the terms of attraction.


----------



## always_alone

Thundarr said:


> It's a far stretch to make being shallow a synonym with making poor choices in general or being irresponsible. When I see someone I care about making poor choices then I'm worried about the poor choices. Rarely is shallowness any part of the issue.
> 
> This thread is specific to physical preferences. When we were growing up I remember that my brother really didn't like cankles. That's the context of shallow in this thread. Why would I try to force him to get over his cankle aversion?


Being shallow isn't the only poor choice a person can make, but it certainly is the source of a number of poor choices. That's what shallow people do: they overlook all sorts of problem behaviours, red flags, and whatnot because all they see is the surface. 

No one is saying that you have to take any responsibility at all for your brother's aversion to cankles. But if that is his main concern in mate choice, then he really ought not be surprised that his lovely-ankled gf/bride is a total [insert complaint here]. Or that there are not enough wonderful women out there for him because of all those atrocious ankles.


----------



## richardsharpe

Good evening
I think of shallow as one form of bad choice. I think of only caring about appearance as being one form of being shallow. 

I think that believing that that there is a single perfect optimum for appearance is another aspect of being shallow.

Caring about appearance is different from ONLY caring about appearance. 

Replace "appearance" with "money" in the above and the same holds true.


----------



## lifeistooshort

technovelist said:


> I was referring to the theory that it is men who are responsible for divorce because they want to trade their wives in on a younger model. This theory doesn't fit the facts, which are that the frequency of divorce goes DOWN with advancing age, not UP. Obviously if it were the men trading in their wives on a younger model, it would be the opposite.
> 
> Hope that helps.


Oh I don't think men are solely responsible for divorce. The funny thing is that while men are more likely to file if their wife cheats they're also less likely to actually leave for a side piece. Many men will keep a ho on the side and try to keep their wife too, so in this sense he doesn't hit the divorce statistics directly but he's certainly ruining his marriage.

As for men getting younger models? I have no data on that. I'm sure a few wealthy ones do but I'm not sure that's the norm and we both know you can't formulate a conclusion based on outliers.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## Thundarr

RoseAglow said:


> To bring it back to the original question- I would consider your brother shallow if he made his decisions about women based solely on whether or not she had "cankles". But, to each his own.
> 
> At the same time, I think that is pretty common for a young guy. I would be very surprised if your brother, as an adult, made decisions about women based off the look of her ankles.


The adverb, *'solely'*, doesn't apply to many of the preferences people have. In reality this was just something he didn't find attractive 25 years ago and maybe doesn't care about any more? But who are we to tell him he's shallow and supposed to find a particular shape attractive or not? I'm a muscular guy and average height yet I don't find women shallow how prefer slim tall guys. There are roughly 3,000,000,000 unique versions of each gender walking around so it's okay to have a preference.


----------



## lglyn1

I don't think you are being shallow. It is okay to have preferences.

My problem is when you have been with someone for many, many years and all of a sudden one of you changes overnight and it becomes an issue or if someone changes over time and doesn't make an effort to go back to being closer to what you find attractive.

If your wife changed her hair color for instance. If you really like her as a red head but she changed it to black and you couldn't bring yourself to like it after a month, then explain you prefer redheads and find her more attractive that way.

If she had gained weight quite a bit of weight, say 100 lbs, over a 10 year period and went from a size 2 to an 18, it would be completely reasonable for you to know longer find her attractive. If she makes an honest attempt to lose the weight and keep it off, I think you should give her credit for it. Don't expect her to get back down to what she was when you got married, because lets face it, that just won't happen as we get older. If she does nothing, no chance.


----------



## morituri

lifeistooshort said:


> Oh I don't think men are solely responsible for divorce. The funny thing is that while men are more likely to file if their wife cheats they're also less likely to actually leave for a side piece. Many men will keep a ho on the side and try to keep their wife too, so in this sense he doesn't hit the divorce statistics directly but he's certainly ruining his marriage.
> 
> As for men getting younger models? I have no data on that. I'm sure a few wealthy ones do but I'm not sure that's the norm and we both know you can't formulate a conclusion based on outliers.
> _Posted via Mobile Device_


Here's something interesting:

_"When a partner indulges in an extramarital affair, the action strikes at the very heart of a marriage which is often unable to cope with the emotional and practical consequences and heads towards divorce. L Betzig, a researcher on anthropology wrote a paper titled "Causes of conjugal dissolution: A cross-cultural study" in 1989 in which he found that infidelity occurred as the single most cited cause of divorce in over 150 cultures and the US is no different. *According to a statistics gleaned from 2004, the highest percentage of divorces - as much as 27% - in the US are caused by extramarital affairs with family strains and then marital abuse coming at the second - 18% - and third - 17% - most common reasons for divorce respectively. In yet another study, more than 25 percent of the women said that their husbands' unfaithfulness was a factor in their divorce. Less than half as many men – around 10.5 percent - said it was their wives' infidelity which was a cause of their divorce. In fact, at 11.6 percent, more men said that their wives' in-laws were a reason for the divorce than said it was because their wives had had an affair"*_

If the figures are correct, then there goes another widely held assumption regarding why men and women divorce.


----------



## Thundarr

always_alone said:


> Being shallow isn't the only poor choice a person can make, but it certainly is the source of a number of poor choices. That's what shallow people do: they overlook all sorts of problem behaviours, red flags, and whatnot because all they see is the surface.
> 
> No one is saying that you have to take any responsibility at all for your brother's aversion to cankles. But if that is his main concern in mate choice, then he really ought not be surprised that his lovely-ankled gf/bride is a total [insert complaint here]. Or that there are not enough wonderful women out there for him because of all those atrocious ankles.


Of course there are people who are blinded by physical appearance. But the title of this thread point blank says 'preferences'. It doesn't ask if compromising principles are ok if the other person is hot enough. Of course that's not smart because it's poor decision making and not all that related to preferences. I think what most are saying is that we have preferences and it's not a big deal. It's almost a non-issue.

My brother was already married (and still is) when I pointed out the girl who I thought was hot and that's when he said he didn't like the cankles. Maybe he was picking at me? Anyway it doesn't matter, it didn't matter, it was an insignificant mole hill.


----------



## Forest

Hey, you like what you like. No need to apologize or rationalize. The Big Problems seem to start after you've committed/married someone you liked initially, then something changes. Then, if your feelings change you get socked with the "shallow" or other deragatory handles.

What I don't get is why a spouse would give rise to some of these situations in the first place.

As a spouse, I feel an obligation and commitment to be representative of the person my wife agreed to marry. Other than the inescapable hand of age and culture, I haven't changed my basic nature or appearance appreciably since the marriage. In short, I'm still the same man she married.

I see lots of marriages where this is not the case. Whether its physical appearance, responsibility, fidelity, personality, etc -- some spouses can get pretty apathetic/lethargic which must be hard to swallow. 

Whatever happened to self respect, or respect for one's partner?


----------



## RandomDude

I always found the stereotype of "If she be pretty, she be a b-tch", and "if she be ugly, she must have a heart of gold"... rather amusing

Too many times I've seen it the other way around


----------



## Mr. Nail

Fortunately for women, men rarely lose their height over time.


----------



## always_alone

Thundarr said:


> Of course there are people who are blinded by physical appearance. But the title of this thread point blank says 'preferences'. It doesn't ask if compromising principles are ok if the other person is hot enough. Of course that's not smart because it's poor decision making and not all that related to preferences. I think what most are saying is that we have preferences and it's not a big deal. It's almost a non-issue.
> 
> My brother was already married (and still is) when I pointed out the girl who I thought was hot and that's when he said he didn't like the cankles. Maybe he was picking at me? Anyway it doesn't matter, it didn't matter, it was an insignificant mole hill.


Yes, true. This whole thread was designed put down who use the term "shallow", and to make sure that we all understand that anyone who would do so is simply a bitter, fat and ugly person who feels bad about themselves and is out to shame anyone for having preferences. This is exactly why I thought it might be somewhat worthwhile to illustrate that the word actually is a fairly accurate description of some people's mate choices and preferences. If it doesn't describe your brother, well it doesn't. 

Although, to be sure, I do find it somewhat fascinating how women are constantly scrutinized for every single body part and ranked against some supermodel standard by so many people who cannot possibly be described as shallow. They just have "preferences".


----------



## EllisRedding

always_alone said:


> Although, to be sure, I do find it somewhat fascinating how women are constantly scrutinized for every single body part and ranked against some supermodel standard by so many people who cannot possibly be described as shallow. They just have "preferences".


I would say this applies to both men and women ... also, in part blame the media for the way they portray men and women leading to unrealistic expectations (case in point magazine covers, etc...)


----------



## always_alone

EllisRedding said:


> I would say this applies to both men and women ... also, in part blame the media for the way they portray men and women leading to unrealistic expectations (case in point magazine covers, etc...)


Yes, too true. The media are certainly the kings of shallow.

"Just buy x-brand toothpaste, and you will be beautiful and all your problems will be solved!"


----------



## Thundarr

always_alone said:


> Yes, true. This whole thread was designed put down who use the term "shallow", and to make sure that we all understand that anyone who would do so is simply a bitter, fat and ugly person who feels bad about themselves and is out to shame anyone for having preferences. This is exactly why I thought it might be somewhat worthwhile to illustrate that the word actually is a fairly accurate description of some people's mate choices and preferences. If it doesn't describe your brother, well it doesn't.
> 
> Although, to be sure, I do find it somewhat fascinating how women are constantly scrutinized for every single body part and ranked against some supermodel standard by so many people who cannot possibly be described as shallow. They just have "preferences".


Ok I see where you're coming from now. Maybe there's some truth to there being a hidden slam here and there but I just haven't seen it.

Regarding women being scrutinized over body parts you're right. Men and women scrutinize each other but it seems to me that women are really hard on themselves. A lot harder than we (men) are. And when a woman doesn't like the way she looks it's very difficult for a guy who thinks she's pretty or sexy to make her to believe it. And businesses take advantage of this big time. First by propagating unreasonable expectations in magazines and runways and then by offering creams, pills, diets, dyes, and gimmicks to reach those unreasonable expectations.


----------



## Deejo

always_alone said:


> Yes, true. This whole thread was designed put down who use the term "shallow", and to make sure that we all understand that anyone who would do so is simply a bitter, fat and ugly person who feels bad about themselves and is out to shame anyone for having preferences. This is exactly why I thought it might be somewhat worthwhile to illustrate that the word actually is a fairly accurate description of some people's mate choices and preferences. If it doesn't describe your brother, well it doesn't.
> 
> Although, to be sure, I do find it somewhat fascinating how women are constantly scrutinized for every single body part and ranked against some supermodel standard by so many people who cannot possibly be described as shallow. They just have "preferences".


I'm not shallow. I accept and embrace that I have beauty privilege. And I accept that there are those that do not.

But if that kind of thinking makes you wrinkle your nose, I'm also too polite to point out you're being shallow.


----------



## Thundarr

Deejo said:


> I'm not shallow. *I accept and embrace that I have beauty privilege. And I accept that there are those that do not.*
> 
> But if that kind of thinking makes you wrinkle your nose, I'm also too polite to point out you're being shallow.


That's my exact position. I accept that others have a different set of priorities and it's just not my business just as my priorities are no one else' business. It's a symptom of understanding that I control only myself and no one else.


----------



## always_alone

Thundarr said:


> Regarding women being scrutinized over body parts you're right. Men and women scrutinize each other but it seems to me that women are really hard on themselves. A lot harder than we (men) are. And when a woman doesn't like the way she looks it's very difficult for a guy who thinks she's pretty or sexy to make her to believe it. And businesses take advantage of this big time. First by propagating unreasonable expectations in magazines and runways and then by offering creams, pills, diets, dyes, and gimmicks to reach those unreasonable expectations.


Uh huh. Sure. That's why your brother and you both find it absolutely and perfectly normal to take a perfectly attractive women and criticize her cankles. Personally, I have to say I've never, ever seen a woman criticize another woman based on the thickness of her ankles. Which is not to say that it never happens. Of course not. Just that IME women tend to be vastly more complimentary of other women (and willing to overlook flaws) than I've ever seen men be.

This is not to say that men have the lock on shallow. Women are also quite capable of it, no doubt.


----------



## always_alone

Deejo said:


> I'm not shallow. I accept and embrace that I have beauty privilege. And I accept that there are those that do not.
> 
> But if that kind of thinking makes you wrinkle your nose, I'm also too polite to point out you're being shallow.


Apparently not quite as polite as you'd have me believe...Especially since I absolutely did not accuse you of being shallow, yet you feel the need to accuse me.

It is very interesting how prevalent this assumption that anyone who even uses the word shallow must be just severely lacking in "beauty privilege" and simply broad-stroke judging the folks that do.


----------



## Thundarr

always_alone said:


> Uh huh. Sure. That's why your brother and you both find it absolutely and perfectly normal to take a perfectly attractive women and criticize her cankles. Personally, I have to say I've never, ever seen a woman criticize another woman based on the thickness of her ankles. Which is not to say that it never happens. Of course not. Just that IME women tend to be vastly more complimentary or other women than I've ever seen men be.
> 
> This is not to say that men have the lock on shallow. Women are also quite capable of it, no doubt.


I think you assert gender bias to everything you read AA. Pretend that a woman wrote my comments and they will read as a person to thinks that women should be more confident in their bodies and not let anyone else influence their esteem. Not women and not men.


----------



## always_alone

Thundarr said:


> That's my exact position. I accept that others have a different set of priorities and it's just not my business just as my priorities are no one else' business. It's a symptom of understanding that I control only myself and no one else.


Yes, I too am very clear that I have no control over others. I can't stop them from lying, cheating, stealing, voting in corrupt politicians, putting too much salt on their food, slacking off, falling out of shape, littering, driving while drunk, working 70 hr weeks, or anything else they might do, for that matter. Yet, I still can observe that such things happen, and may even formulate an opinion or two about the advantages and disadvantages of such activities.

Does that make me controlling?


----------



## Thundarr

always_alone said:


> Yes, I too am very clear that I have no control over others. I can't stop them from lying, cheating, stealing, voting in corrupt politicians, putting too much salt on their food, slacking off, falling out of shape, littering, driving while drunk, working 70 hr weeks, or anything else they might do, for that matter. Yet, I still can observe that such things happen, and may even formulate an opinion or two about the advantages and disadvantages of such activities.
> 
> Does that make me controlling?


I suspect our opinions match on most of what you listed there which doesn't have anything to do with the topic by the way. But we don't agree on the part you left out about peoples preferences of attraction which is the topic.

And no, having an opinion is not controlling.


----------



## always_alone

Thundarr said:


> I think you assert gender bias to everything you read AA. Pretend that a woman wrote my comments and they will read as a person to thinks that women should be more confident in their bodies and not let anyone else influence their esteem. Not women and not men.


I dunno, Thundarr. To me it sounds like you are equivocating. You originally said:

"When we were growing up I remember that my brother really didn't like cankles."

And then told the story of how he responded this way when you pointed out an attractive woman.

If a woman had said that, it's true that I would have to revise my observation that I've never seen a woman criticize another for her cankles. But even in that same post, I acknowledged that such things happen and that women too can be shallow.

Really, my only point in this whole thread is that "having preferences" is not really what being shallow means. Shallow is its own special thing. And some people fit the description amazingly well.

Even one or two who don't really want to see it that way.

ETA: I just re-read your post and understood better what you were saying there. And yes, I do agree that media capitalizes and feeds on women's (and even men's!!) insecurities. And yes, we can't let ourselves be upset if we don't fit anyone's preferences. I still think, though, it's off to say that identifying someone as shallow is an obvious sign that one is just feeling bad because they are failing to meet the standards.


----------



## Thundarr

always_alone said:


> I dunno, Thundarr. To me it sounds like you are equivocating. You originally said:
> 
> "When we were growing up I remember that my brother really didn't like cankles."
> 
> And then told the story of how he responded this way when you pointed out an attractive woman.
> 
> If a woman had said that, it's true that I would have to revise my observation that I've never seen a woman criticize another for her cankles. But even in that same post, I acknowledged that such things happen and that women too can be shallow.


But on this very thread several women have expressed preferences as well. Why is him disliking that thing any different than a woman liking slim guys? I don't consider them shallow for liking slim or lanky guys even though I'm not slim or lanky.


----------



## Thundarr

always_alone said:


> Really, my only point in this whole thread is that "having preferences" is not really what being shallow means. Shallow is its own special thing. And some people fit the description amazingly well.
> 
> Even one or two who don't really want to see it that way.


I agree There's a line where preferences are detrimental meaning they cause someone to make poor choices.


----------



## always_alone

Thundarr said:


> But on this very thread several women have expressed preferences as well. Why is him disliking that thing any different than a woman liking slim guys? I don't consider them shallow for liking slim or lanky guys even though I'm not slim or lanky.


It isn't different. What's important, to my mind at least, is not about whether it's a woman or man, it's the attitude towards the preference, and the degree to which one looks below the surface as well.

I may dig a certain look in guys, but if I can look beyond that to see what else he may or may not have to offer, then I'm not reply being shallow. But if I judge all about him based on that one superficial criteria? Then absolutely yes, I'd say I was pretty damn shallow.


----------



## Deejo

always_alone said:


> Apparently not quite as polite as you'd have me believe...Especially since I absolutely did not accuse you of being shallow, yet you feel the need to accuse me.
> 
> It is very interesting how prevalent this assumption that anyone who even uses the word shallow must be just severely lacking in "beauty privilege" and simply broad-stroke judging the folks that do.


I swear to God, this Christmas I'm getting you a sense of humor.


----------



## Starstarfish

Why when women express how they saw something said to them that apparently was vague enough to not read as "wink wink sarcasm" as intended, is the reaction lighten up, you need a sense humor?

It goes with "you should smile more often." Like being female inherently requires that your emotions and reactions sit within a certain box.


----------



## always_alone

Deejo said:


> I swear to God, this Christmas I'm getting you a sense of humor.


That was funny?

Sorry, I guess you are too subtle for me. I need some sarcasm tags, or maybe a little tongue in cheek emoticon. 

Either that or you really are really, really, really good looking.


----------



## Pluto2

Thundarr said:


> But on this very thread several women have expressed preferences as well. Why is him disliking that thing any different than a woman liking slim guys? I don't consider them shallow for liking slim or lanky guys even though I'm not slim or lanky.


Both sides are shallow, is the point that's being made I think.

Just embrace it, if that's who you are. But why say she's shallow but I'm not? If a single physical/financial trait is controlling who you are with, that is by definition shallow. Does it really matter so much what someone outside your relationship thinks?


----------



## always_alone

Starstarfish said:


> Why when women express how they saw something said to them that apparently was vague enough to not read as "wink wink sarcasm" as intended, is the reaction lighten up, you need a sense humor?
> 
> It goes with "you should smile more often." Like being female inherently requires that your emotions and reactions sit within a certain box.


I am familiar with this phenomenon, and find it annoying as well. It's often just a way of lashing out at someone who isn't giving the "right" response, the one you're looking for.

But I don't think that's the case here. I think Deejo wants to find me likable and thinks I should be smart enough to get his jokes, but is frustrated by how recalcitrant and thick-headed I really am.


----------



## Deejo

Starstarfish said:


> Why when women express how they saw something said to them that apparently was vague enough to not read as "wink wink sarcasm" as intended, is the reaction lighten up, you need a sense humor?
> 
> It goes with "you should smile more often." Like being female inherently requires that your emotions and reactions sit within a certain box.


I don't know. But probably because it's true.

/wit
/sarcasm
#End


----------



## always_alone

Deejo said:


> I don't know. But probably because it's true.
> 
> /wit
> /sarcasm
> #End


Okay well that settles it: You're really just *that* good-looking! :wink2:


----------



## Runs like Dog

Why are you considered deep and spiritual for not? Maybe you're just picking on the easy ones.


----------



## Deejo

always_alone said:


> That was funny?
> 
> Sorry, I guess you are too subtle for me. I need some sarcasm tags, or maybe a little tongue in cheek emoticon.
> 
> Either that or you really are really, really, really good looking.


Roger that.
For the record, my sense of humor comment was also intended with humor as well.


----------



## always_alone

Deejo said:


> Roger that.
> For the record, my sense of humor comment was also intended with humor as well.


*That* one I got! I'm dim, but there are still some flickers.


----------



## DvlsAdvc8

I look at it this way, I can fall for a LOT of different personality types, but after I'm really hooked it'd be hard to leave regardless of physical changes that come (though I've only been that attached a couple times; I've experienced it with attitude/behavior changes). The history/connection/depth has a tendency to keep me tied up in spite of other problems. I imagine it would be the same for physical appearance, especially weight, but no one I've gotten attached to has ever gotten fat or whatever. Still, it factors into what I seek. I think most people gain weight with age, so I look for indicators that help me avoid ending up attached to someone I'm not going to be physically attracted to later and err to that side of the range of women I'm attracted to... Body type, sporty/active, and diet. I mitigate the problem by seeking those I predict are likely to maintain well, or no worse than I do anyway.

Why is it seemingly presumed that certain strict physical appearance preferences mean one doesn't care for depth? I'll never understand why people link the two. For me, it's an order of operations.


----------



## always_alone

DvlsAdvc8 said:


> I look at it this way, I can fall for a LOT of different personality types, but after I'm really hooked it'd be hard to leave regardless of physical changes that come (though I've only been that attached a couple times; I've experienced it with attitude/behavior changes). The history/connection/depth has a tendency to keep me tied up in spite of other problems. I imagine it would be the same for physical appearance, especially weight, but no one I've gotten attached to has ever gotten fat or whatever. Still, it factors into what I seek. I think most people gain weight with age, so I look for indicators that help me avoid ending up attached to someone I'm not going to be physically attracted to later and err to that side of the range of women I'm attracted to... Body type, sporty/active, and diet. I mitigate the problem by seeking those I predict are likely to maintain well, or no worse than I do anyway.
> 
> Why is it seemingly presumed that certain strict physical appearance preferences mean one doesn't care for depth? I'll never understand why people link the two. For me, it's an order of operations.


Yeah, that's why I like to conduct a full analysis of family history before getting too excited about anyone. Any hint of pattern baldness or bowling ball belly syndrome, and I am outta there.


----------



## jld

always_alone said:


> Yeah, that's why I like to conduct a full analysis of family history before getting too excited about anyone. Any hint of pattern baldness or bowling ball belly syndrome, and I am outta there.


----------



## always_alone

Here you go, Deejo. This one is especially for you:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JfvOdE8_qno

Merry Christmas!


----------



## Deejo

That was fantastic.


----------



## DvlsAdvc8

always_alone said:


> Yeah, that's why I like to conduct a full analysis of family history before getting too excited about anyone. Any hint of pattern baldness or bowling ball belly syndrome, and I am outta there.


You joke, but this makes perfect sense if baldness is repulsive to you.


----------

