How important are looks when choosing a bf/gf

[Proton Soup]

But did you find her unattractive? Probably not. That's more of what I'm getting at. I don't think it's likely someone would end up dating a person they thought was physically repulsive the first time they met them (unless it's something they grow out of), but someone who is just in the neutral category, where you never really gave any thought to their appearance when you met them, could easily become more attractive as you get to know them better.

yes. her butt was too big and i didn't like her face, either. not repulsive, but enough that i remember thinking about it. definitely not neutral.

 

[mcknia07]

99% of them are, sorry to tell you.

If you got the remaining 1%, count yourself lucky!

Excuse me, I think my boyfriend may think you are wrong... Do we all need to post pictures.. I think you all just need to guess again on stereotyping blondes! K, thanks

Looks do play a small part, but I go more for personality, like my current boyfriend is everything I could as for in a man, not to mention, he's persistent

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

I haven't really noticed a difference in models of male magazines or female.

There is a big difference. On the cover of a men's magazine you are likely to see http://cm1.theinsider.com/media/0/9...s_gq_september_2008_main.0.0.0x0.365x486.jpeg.
Its often said that magazine models have made women feel that they need to be near anorexic to be attractive to men. They are obviously looking at the wrong magazines.

 

[Loren Booda]

Superficial looks make for superficial relationships. I believe that in long-term relationships, appearance and personality actually persevere, approaching each other in time.

Love seems to see each person as both unique yet familiar. The naked body, with its idiosyncrasies, can be a work of art and part of a mysterious relation.

 

[Monique]

There is a big difference. On the cover of a men's magazine you are likely to see http://cm1.theinsider.com/media/0/9...s_gq_september_2008_main.0.0.0x0.365x486.jpeg

You call that curvier?? The models on both magazines look the same to me, except the level of clothing.

 

[Proton Soup]

You call that curvier?? The models on both magazines look the same to me, except the level of clothing.

yeah, you've got a point. the GQ cover girls look like they've dieted down to low bodyfat percentages and gotten implants to make up for the lack of boobs.

 

[Monique]

Body types exist along the whole spectrum of the bell curve, but with some clever push-up effects and a clever make-up artist and some digital editing you can go a long way to make any woman look luscious in a picture (which I suspect a men's magazine would be more inclined to do than a women's magazine).

"[Keira Knightly] also claims magazine publishers in the US ban stars from appearing on their front covers unless they have at least a C-cup size, or are willing to be digitally enhanced to make it appear as if they have."

 

[Kys91]

When I hear "blondes", I automatically think of women. Why is that? Men have blonde hair too.

That's because "blonde" is the adjective for females with yellowish hair and "blond" is how you call a male with yellowish hair. :D

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

You call that curvier?? The models on both magazines look the same to me, except the level of clothing.

The one on the vogue cover looks like sticks with skin pulled over it. The ones on GQ may not be very "thick" but they certainly have more curves than that bean pole on Vogue.

Edit: note that the models on GQ actually have thighs.

 

[leroyjenkens]

That's because "blonde" is the adjective for females with yellowish hair and "blond" is how you call a male with yellowish hair. :D

Good answer. I can't believe that distinction actually exists.

 

[seycyrus]

The one on the vogue cover looks like sticks with skin pulled over it. The ones on GQ may not be very "thick" but they certainly have more curves than that bean pole on Vogue.

Edit: note that the models on GQ actually have thighs.

In the woman's magazines, they are selling fashion, whereas in the men's magazines, they are selling ... something else.

I've heard it said that clothes "look" better on a taller, thinner frame.

 

[Jasongreat]

In the woman's magazines, they are selling fashion, whereas in the men's magazines, they are selling ... something else.

I've heard it said that clothes "look" better on a taller, thinner frame.

IMO womens magazines are selling clothes that will only fit(and look good) a very small percentage of women. The thing that really bugs me is when people that wear clothes that are in fashion, but are obviously not made for them like hip hugger pants and a belly shirt on a size 16 woman. I think the reason the magazines put itty bitty women on their covers is because itty bitty women are rare, the same thing that makes a story news, its rare. Mens magazines are selling the same thing the womens mags do imo, just different reasons. Mens mags try to sell men on the idea that if you buy this product these pretty women will like you, womens mags try to sell women on the idea that if you wear these clothes you will be as beautiful as the woman on the cover(wrong on both counts but it sells).

Edit: Sorry for getting of topic Noblegas, As far as th OP, I think a lot of people do choose mates by using looks as a priority. The problem is looks fade(maybe that is why plastic surgery is so popular) and if the relationship is based on physical attraction the relationship fades also. I don't see any way of getting away from that completely though since like a few people have stated in other posts that there is no way someone will approach someone they find hideous in order to see that beautiful personallity. I do think that guys are worse at using looks as a main criteria, women seem to go more for substance than looks. I see far more beautiful women with average joes on their arm than handsome men with average janes on theirs. I am of the type that doesn't like to fight nature so I would have to say that looks get my attention the personality keeps it.

 

[Sorry!]

Womens magazines are selling clothes that will only fit(and look good) a very small percentage of women. The thing that really bugs me is when people that wear clothes that are in fashion, but are obviously not made for them like hip hugger pants and a belly shirt on a size 16 woman. I think the reason the magazines put itty bitty women on their covers is because itty bitty women are rare, the same thing that makes news news its rare. Mens magazines are selling the same thing the womens mags do imo, just different reasons. Mens mags try to sell men on the idea that if you buy this product these pretty women will like you, womens mags try to sell women on the idea that if you wear these clothes you will be the woman(wrong on both counts but it sells).

Pretty much none of this is true... with the exception of the last statement that some women feel if they buy the clothing they will be like that lady in the advert.

The reason itty bitty women are chosen to model the clothing is for the simple fact that it sells the clothing. As well the clothing that these women in the adverts. are not only made for females who are size 00... I don't know where you get that from. The clothing ON the model probably is but why would there only be one size?

I guess I'm lucky that I have a girlfriend who looks great in the clothing that you see models wearing in magazines or are up on the manaquins? I highly doubt that as the majority of the females I know also wear the same clothes and still look great.
Question: Are you American?
Something to think about is that a lot of fashion comes from Europe where people are much more 'skinnier' than in USA.
Even here in Canada it's noticably different than in America.

Here's something a lot of people here probably don't know:
A lot of fashion industries are banning underweight models. They are still comparatively skinny to the general American demographic but by no means unhealthy.
This is getting off topic though. sorry :D

 

[noblegas]

Definetely, it is getting off of topic a little.I wish my original OP questions were answered in most posts. I know looks matter, but how much compared to other qualities of a person, like the person personality and their overall outlook on like. Are these qualities equally important or some qualities just more equal than others? Perhaps I should have created a poll for this thread before creating it.

 

[Monique]

Definetely, it is getting off of topic a little.I wish my original OP questions were answered in most posts. I know looks matter, but how much compared to other qualities of a person, like the person personality and their overall outlook on like. Are these qualities equally important or some qualities just more equal than others? Perhaps I should have created a poll for this thread before creating it.

Doesn't it all depend on chemistry? You don't consciously go down a list of "this is important in a spouse". Sometimes it can be the looks, other times it can be the mind. You can say looks don't last long, but people's minds and attitudes also change over time.

 

[Kronos5253]

The reason itty bitty women are chosen to model the clothing is for the simple fact that it sells the clothing.

And why does it sell the clothing?

Mens mags try to sell men on the idea that if you buy this product these pretty women will like you, womens mags try to sell women on the idea that if you wear these clothes you will be the woman(wrong on both counts but it sells).

That's why.

 

[Loren Booda]

What drives "heroin chic" and similar models is the illusion that fashion is art, and that one can become a work of art if one buys into the elite's (emperor's) dress, their fantasies and their mannerisms. Altogether economy, realism and independence make for more worthwhile role models.

 

[Pyrrhus]

Doesn't it all depend on chemistry? You don't consciously go down a list of "this is important in a spouse". Sometimes it can be the looks, other times it can be the mind. You can say looks don't last long, but people's minds and attitudes also change over time.

I think Monique hit the nail. There are many times, I go out and end meeting different girls. These girls have way different looks, style and personality (blonde, brunette, funny, witty...), and I definitely don't "fall in love" with any of these girls at first glance. In fact, all the girls before exchanging any words are on the same scale to me. There are some exceptions, but what these exceptions do for me is to go and meet those girls i though where more interesting first. That's it!. So, after I chat the girls up, I end up deciding if I want to go out and meet her again or I'm not interested at all. I, certainly, am unable to do any decision BEFORE any exchange of words. That's how it is for me.

I've dated in the past girls looking very different from each other. I've dated white, blonde, blue eyes; I've dated brunette, green eyes, white; I've dated black hair, brown eyes, tanned skin; and more. Probably, my dates will be like different flavors in an ice cream parlor. Now, don't be fooled, of course, there are some similarities between these girls. Physically, I think I prefer a certain look for shape of the face and body, which is hard to describe, and Personality-wise, I like a girl that is independent, funny, and loyal (plus some other factors I value).

Of course, an important factor in the process is chemistry; we must like each other, one sided likeness is nonsense and it usually leads to problems (obsession, girl or boy taking advantage of the other, unrequited feelings...). Sometimes, I'd like the girl, and to meet her more, but she is not interested or the other way around. In any case, just because someone is "super attractive" according to Vogue, GQ, Playboy, or other magazines does not mean that person will instantly be a good catch or a good partner. However, it might mean more leniency as you giving them more chances in order to continue knowing them, or you introducing yourself first to them in order to chat them up.

Now for the exception, Yes there are people out there who value LOOKS higher than other equally important factors such as PERSONALITY, and YES you guessed those relationships will die off, unless by some miracle they like each other personality-wise as well.

 

[Huckleberry]

Doesn't it all depend on chemistry? You don't consciously go down a list of "this is important in a spouse".

No, it seems to be fairly common in my experience that women list the things they are looking for in a spouse in conversation on a first date. The two things that come up most often are kids and money. I just want to shoot some pool and have a few beers and talk about bar condiments or anything besides kids and money.

Looks are important to me when I don't know someone. As I get to know them looks become less important. If she rocks then average looking is perfectly fine. A large part of the attraction is that she doesn't need me at all, but would rather spend time with me anyway. That's a huge turn on.

 

[noblegas]

No, it seems to be fairly common in my experience that women list the things they are looking for in a spouse in conversation on a first date. The two things that come up most often are kids and money. I just want to shoot some pool and have a few beers and talk about bar condiments or anything besides kids and money.

Looks are important to me when I don't know someone. As I get to know them looks become less important. If she rocks then average looking is perfectly fine. A large part of the attraction is that she doesn't need me at all, but would rather spend time with me anyway. That's a huge turn on.

So are looks than a prerequisite for you before you can evaluate every other quality about the person you are attracted to?

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

So are looks than a prerequisite for you before you can evaluate every other quality about the person you are attracted to?

I think he means that looks are pretty much the only thing you have to go on for being attracted to a person until you get to know them, in most cases anyway.

 

[noblegas]

I think he means that looks are pretty much the only thing you have to go on for being attracted to a person until you get to know them, in most cases anyway.

Not necessarily. you can be attracted to a person you are friends with and most of us don't choose friends based on looks.

 

[Proton Soup]

Not necessarily. you can be attracted to a person you are friends with and most of us don't choose friends based on looks.

oh really? what sort of sheltered existence do you live?

 

[noblegas]

oh really? what sort of sheltered existence do you live?

Is that really the reality? You reallly create your friendships not based on the values and interests you share but on LOOKS? I can sort of understand why looks are somewhat important for seeking a relationship... Why are looks important in seeking a friendship?

 

[Proton Soup]

Is that really the reality? You reallly create your friendships not based on the values and interests you share but on LOOKS? I can sort of understand why looks are somewhat important for seeking a relationship... Why are looks important in seeking a friendship?

look around you. this is the way people are. I'm not saying it's right, it's just typical human behavior. we want to be around beautiful people.

 

[turbo]

oh really? what sort of sheltered existence do you live?

Wow! Most of my closest friends in HS were not cute, popular, slim, etc. One young lady towered over me and was "big-boned" to say the least. We both enjoyed skiing, music, student government, sports, and lots of other interests, and we spent a lot of time together. We geeks had "cute" friends too, but we weren't fixated on that.

BTW, if you are a nice person, enough "cute" people will gravitate to you. I was in too many sports and extracurricular activities and couldn't commit to playing basketball and making all the practices, so I agreed to become the team's manager/trainer. I rode the bus up front with the coach and the cheerleaders, and my older (musician) friend's sisters always sat with me on the bus. They were one and two years older than me and were very cute and curvy cheerleaders. Some of our away games involved cold bus-rides of 2-3 hours one way. They were sweet girls and appreciated having a trusted friend that they could lean on and sleep without getting copped for a cheap feel. I'd tease them about drooling in their sleep (the older girl WAS pretty drool-y and snore-y when she was sleeping comfortably).

Their brother (one of my closest friends) is very large. He was a dedicated musician who always had one band or another in the works (think Leslie West and Mountain), and he is now a pro tennis-racket tuner/stringer working out of Long Island. My sisters were very pretty and trim, and they always hung with him just because he was nice, interesting, and talented.

 

[noblegas]

Wow! Most of my closest friends in HS were not cute, popular, slim, etc. One young lady towered over me and was "big-boned" to say the least. We both enjoyed skiing, music, student government, sports, and lots of other interests, and we spent a lot of time together. We geeks had "cute" friends too, but we weren't fixated on that.

BTW, if you are a nice person, enough "cute" people will gravitate to you. I was in too many sports and extracurricular activities and couldn't commit to playing basketball and making all the practices, so I agreed to become the team's manager/trainer. I rode the bus up front with the coach and the cheerleaders, and my older (musician) friend's sisters always sat with me on the bus. They were one and two years older than me and were very cute and curvy cheerleaders. Some of our away games involved cold bus-rides of 2-3 hours one way. They were sweet girls and appreciated having a trusted friend that they could lean on and sleep without getting copped for a cheap feel. I'd tease them about drooling in their sleep (the older girl WAS pretty drool-y and snore-y when she was sleeping comfortably).

Their brother (one of my closest friends) is very large. He was a dedicated musician who always had one band or another in the works (think Leslie West and Mountain), and he is now a pro tennis-racket tuner/stringer working out of Long Island. My sisters were very pretty and trim, and they always hung with him just because he was nice, interesting, and talented.

what about your fat friends who are girls? (or do you have any)

 

[turbo]

what about your fat friends who are girls? (or do you have any)

Yes, I have quite a few, to this day. What is wrong with you?

 

[noblegas]

Yes, I have quite a few, to this day. What is wrong with you?

Nothing. I just noticed you mention all of your attractive friends who were girls going to your fat guy friends.

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

Not necessarily. you can be attracted to a person you are friends with and most of us don't choose friends based on looks.

Generally if you are friends with someone then you probably know them to some degree.
And yes, most people also use looks to determine whom to approach and make conversation with. Personally if I saw a jock looking guy in a sports jersey I am not going to think I have much in common with him and so I will be less likely to try to start a conversation with him. Not that I would not make friends with a jock or possibly find something in common with one but if it were between him and the dorky looking guy with glasses and an Einstein shirt I am thinking I will probably have more in common with the latter.