How important are looks when choosing a bf/gf

[TheStatutoryApe]

I have found that people most often (<--- that means not always by the by) determine their standard of physical attractiveness for their partner based on their sense of their own attractiveness. Though it seems that most people eventually make decisions about long term relationships based on personality over looks. Its hard to have a fulfilling relationship with someone whom you have difficulty being emotionally intimate with no matter how good they might look naked.
Intelligence, as far as I can tell, has little to do with it. I have met plenty of intelligent people who were shallow and arrogant and plenty of nonintellectuals who were very caring and nice (including "beautiful" airheads).
One of my first threads here was actually discussing the idea that attraction based on intelligence can be just as shallow as attraction based on physical looks. I would place 'personality' as a factor separate from 'intelligence'.

I just get tired of beautiful people being put up on a pedestal for simply being beauty. You see, models don't have to develop any skill other than posing for their job, yet people will have them endorse certain products and they will be on the cover of a magazine.

Most models do in fact need to cultivate other skills since their looks are transitory. Most models are in college and working towards a degree in something, though it may not be molecular biology or quantum physics.
Many "beautiful" people also hate to be valued for their looks. Most of the attractive females I have known have been incredibly averse to the idea of modeling. They simply hate the idea of being treated as though their looks are their most valuable asset.

Study after study shows that society treats beautiful people better than average looking people. Bet you won't find that many study where people from mensa are treated better than people with "normal" intelligence.

In my experience people treat you better when you are more intelligent. In my high school my best friend and I were treated quite well by the jocks. Mostly because we were nice and we were misfits. The intelligent people that they treated poorly were the ones with a superior attitude, the ones that felt they were above talking to jocks.
In dating I think people may be more likely to steer clear of people who are more intelligent because they find it daunting. If you 'catch' yourself a person more attractive than you then people are likely to think more highly of you. If you 'catch' a person much more intelligent than you people are more likely to wonder what he/she sees in you.
It easier to rationalize to yourself that a more attractive person may find things about you that they value than a more intelligent person would be able to find such attributes. A sort of ditzy but very attractive ex coworker of mine had a crush on my brainiac friend but was absolutely terrified of trying to hit on him because she was afraid he would think she was just a ditzy blonde.

I know looks are probably admire, because that is the first trait we see about a person we can judge a person on before knowing anything else about them .But I think people should get beyond this habit and should not be so shallow;

I think most people are less shallow then that. You just can't expect other people to value the same sorts of traits other than beauty that you do (ie, intelligence[<--assuming]).

 

[Phrak]

Re: How important are looks when choosing a bf/gf

I don't know about bf/bg, but df/db must be an irrational prime.

 

[SticksandStones]

I work out a lot. I run every day. I watch what I eat (most of the time). I take the time to look at what I'm wearing in the morning, I brush my teeth to keep them clean, and I style my hair such that it complements the rest of my body. These are all basic things everyone can do (Okay, maybe not so much the running thing, but I think a good percentage of people can work out in some regard) to increase their level of perceived attractiveness. It boosts YOUR self esteem (who doesn't like to look good?) and it's also a common courtesy to those around you (ever see an obese person in spandex?).

So yeah, looks are important to me in so much that it shows me what kind of person you are. If you're overweight and without some sort of medical problem then it shows me that you don't care enough about yourself to even do the basic act of going for a walk in the morning (or some other time). And, frankly, why should I care about you if you don't even care about yourself? I mean, I'm a sucker for the damsel in distress but if you don't even care enough to brush your hair in the morning...well...that's just sad.

EDIT: For what it's worth, what most people seem to consider hot I consider "meh". Cute goes a lot further with me.

 

[rootX]

Vista has good looks.. but really, how successful it went? I considered Windows 7 but I am too worried that it might also be all about the looks. Apple has sexy looks but is bit expensive and I am not used to its UI.

 

[whs]

I agree with SticksandStones. I have been running for the last 10 years, 6 of them semi-competitively.

It isn't hard to work out a little bit here and there and watch what you eat. I'm sick of over-weight people complaining about it. If someone doesn't care about what they are putting into their body, or sitting around all day, then I would have a huge problem with that.

People say they 'don't have enough time', but that is pure BS.

Our bodies were not built to sit around all day. When I go running I like to pretend I'm in a more primal era, running to catch the days food, etc.

 

[Math Is Hard]

Our bodies were not built to sit around all day. When I go running I like to pretend I'm in a more primal era, running to catch the days food, etc.

I do that, too. I usually tie a pot roast to the back of my neighbor's truck with a jump rope, and have him drive around the block while I chase after it.

 

[Hurkyl]

Edit: If you need verification that I'm a "hot" blonde, you can ask my boyfriend.

Those scare quotes... um... scare me...

 

[BobG]

So IQ scores are supposed to have an average of 100 right? Why, when looking at the table that indicates the IQ score of people of differing attractiveness, does that imply that more people are above average than below average? I would have thought attractiveness was a bell curve


EDIT: To clarify my statement, people who are very attractive or attractive have an IQ score of just over 100, but people who are unattractive are several points below 100, so for those two to balance there must be many more people who qualify as attractive

It could just be a reflection of where he did his research: http://www.vdare.com/sailer/041114_iq_table.htm.

Generally, the easiest way for a state to improve its average IQ is to move closer to Canada.

The research probably wasn't done in Japan (in spite of his name) since Japan has a high average IQ, while the US average is slightly below 100. IQ and the wealth of nations

In other words, his research created interesting numbers that could possibly make sense (Surely, attractiveness and traits that contribute to survival should have some correlation, but I think the package is a lot more complicated than just IQ. But, general health does contribute both to intelligence and attractiveness.)

 

[Proton Soup]

one of my first serious girlfriends in high school, i have to say i didn't find her attractive at all when i first met her. but sometimes you get to know someone and their looks change.

 

[BobG]

one of my first serious girlfriends in high school, i have to say i didn't find her attractive at all when i first met her. but sometimes you get to know someone and their looks change.

That's true. My first serious girlfriend kept telling me to comb my hair and change my underwear once in a while. She made me so attractive I was able to dump her and find someone who didn't nag so much.

 

[noblegas]

In other words, his research created interesting numbers that could possibly make sense (Surely, attractiveness and traits that contribute to survival should have some correlation, but I think the package is a lot more complicated than just IQ. But, general health does contribute both to intelligence and attractiveness.)

You think there is a strong correlation between looking llike a model and keeping a healthy diet?

I just don't think "more attractive" looking people are treated better in generally by society because they are more sucessful at what they do. People don't even have to the background of a more attractive-super model type person, but studies have shown that they will be treated better by total strangers on the street than average looking people , as exhibited in this story. http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3917414#storyContinued

A person's physical attractiveness -- the look that they're basically born with -- impacts every individual literally from birth to death,” says Dr. Gordon Patzer, dean of the College of Business Administration at Roosevelt University. He's spent 30 years studying and writing about physical attractiveness. “People are valued more who are higher in physical attractiveness. As distasteful at that might be, that's the reality.”

Valued more? We wondered and decided to find a group of average, nice looking individuals and super, highly attractive people to test this attractiveness phenomenon. We looked for people with similar traits: the same race, no discernible accents, similar age groups. That way the focus would be exclusively on attractiveness.

So we hired models Anthony and Allison, and asked two NBC employees, Loren and another Anthony, to hit the streets, a bank, an auto shop, and even ride the bus, all the time wearing hidden cameras to see just how much looks matter.

First, we gave our foursome folders filled with papers and had them drop the contents on a New York City street. Would anyone stop to help?

When model Allison drops her file, there seems to be a sudden change in the weather. Is it raining men? A man even uses his cane to stop the pages from flying away.

“It was just amazing how people would flock to me to clean it up,” says Allison. “I have dropped my purse and wallet and people always help me pick it up. But I never really thought about if somebody else dropped their wallet, maybe they wouldn't help them. It just seems strange to me.”

NBC staffer Loren is about to be that someone else. She drops the papers and people step by, rather than stop. About a dozen people pass by before, finally, a woman offers help.

I suspect when choosing mates, people will go after a model type person, if given the opportunity. What a crooked society.

 

[leroyjenkens]

“It was just amazing how people would flock to me to clean it up,” says Allison. “I have dropped my purse and wallet and people always help me pick it up. But I never really thought about if somebody else dropped their wallet, maybe they wouldn't help them. It just seems strange to me.”

When I drop my wallet, people kick it. Or steal it. Or sometimes I'll drop my wallet and someone will say "Wow, you're ugly". They don't beat around the bush.

 

[Sorry!]

When I drop my wallet, people kick it. Or steal it. Or sometimes I'll drop my wallet and someone will say "Wow, you're ugly". They don't beat around the bush.

HAHAHHAAHHHAHAHAHAHHA. LEEEERRROOOOOOOOYYYYY :D

Seriously though if I drop my wallet or papers normally people would help pick it up... if I see someone else drop stuff I normally help them pick it up too. Regardless of what they look like... now if I TALK to them that's completely different. If its a pretty girl and my girlfriend is far enough away I'd probably strike up a conversation about which hotel... ahh can't share those stories with you guys.

 

[BobG]

You think there is a strong correlation between looking llike a model and keeping a healthy diet?

No. Culture has seized on a single human trait (thin body) and exaggerated it beyond its 'natural' occurrence? Perhaps, but finding a single refined trait exaggerated beyond common sense isn't unnatural. How does a peacock's tail contribute to the survival of a peacock? Evolution is full of 'successes' that veered at least part way down a dead end (i.e. - at some point, further non-functionality in a peacock's tail would become a serious disadvantage).

I suspect when choosing mates, people will go after a model type person, if given the opportunity. What a crooked society.

A lot of decisions humans make are irrational, but that doesn't mean our decisions are crooked. It just means it's easier to detect and react to a few key traits subconciously than to sort out the entire package using rational thought.

And some traits become important very quickly. Good teeth in the US, for example. Ask Americans what they look for first in a date and see how often "good teeth" comes up.

A person with good teeth is probably more likely to be intelligent than a person with bad teeth (but only if education level correlates with intelligence). High school dropouts, aged 20-64, were missing an average 4.63 teeth in 98-04; high school graduates were missing an average of 3.24 teeth; and people with some college were missing an average of 1.65 teeth.

Still, it can be a misguided trait. As late as '98, the average person in the UK was missing about 7.2 teeth and the average Brit is not less intelligent than the average American. Yet, the average Brit was going to have a harder time getting a date in the US than the least intelligent American.

 

[Moonbear]

one of my first serious girlfriends in high school, i have to say i didn't find her attractive at all when i first met her. but sometimes you get to know someone and their looks change.

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.

 

[Moonbear]

I suspect when choosing mates, people will go after a model type person, if given the opportunity. What a crooked society.

I don't think so. Models are very photogenic, but don't necessarily look very special in person. They're the ones who got teased in high school as being the plain Jane scrawny beanpole (I'm basing this on stories from models interviewed on talk shows).

The men I know usually look for curves on women, which models don't have. As a woman, I find male models generally unattractive...there's something effeminate in most of their appearances, at least for my taste, and I can't help but think they're likely more attracted to other male models rather than women. I could be wrong about their sexual orientation, but that's the vibe I get from their appearances alone. I'm more attracted to men with meat on their bones...the construction worker physique is much more attractive to me than a model physique.

 

[Sorry!]

I'll admit whenever I see a girl the first thing I recognize is a NICE SIMLE. Like I don't even know why but having nice teeth IMO is very attractive on its own.

 

[BobG]

I don't think so. Models are very photogenic, but don't necessarily look very special in person. They're the ones who got teased in high school as being the plain Jane scrawny beanpole (I'm basing this on stories from models interviewed on talk shows).

The men I know usually look for curves on women, which models don't have. As a woman, I find male models generally unattractive...there's something effeminate in most of their appearances, at least for my taste, and I can't help but think they're likely more attracted to other male models rather than women. I could be wrong about their sexual orientation, but that's the vibe I get from their appearances alone. I'm more attracted to men with meat on their bones...the construction worker physique is much more attractive to me than a model physique.

I'm glad you gave your source. I think their self-descriptions about their looks are about as reliable as people's self-description of their economic status ("us poor, but honest, hardworking folk" vs. those "cheating, thieving misers obsessed with money" or those "lazy, moronic welfare pioneers").

You're still right. There is a difference between models in women's magazines and men's magazines. The anorexic tendency of models in women's magazines don't equate into a 3-dimensional world quite as well as the curves of models in men's magazines.

I wonder who male models are designed to appeal to - men or to the women that pick out men's clothes for them? Is there a difference between male models in women's magazines and male models in men's magazines?

 

[Sorry!]

I'm glad you gave your source. I think their self-descriptions about their looks are about as reliable as people's self-description of their economic status ("us poor, but honest, hardworking folk" vs. those "cheating, thieving misers obsessed with money" or those "lazy, moronic welfare pioneers").

You're still right. There is a difference between models in women's magazines and men's magazines. The anorexic tendency of models in women's magazines don't equate into a 3-dimensional world quite as well as the curves of models in men's magazines.

I wonder who male models are designed to appeal to - men or to the women that pick out men's clothes for them? Is there a difference between male models in women's magazines and male models in men's magazines?

I haven't really noticed a difference in models of male magazines or female. What I have noticed is a difference in appearance for different types of advertising... which should be obvious. I've taken many, many art courses including photography and fashion photography. So I've studied MANY many different photographs of models. It is true that most models don't look as glamorous or 'perfected' in real life but they are still pretty attractive overall. It's not all digital alterations either in fact just with simple lighting techniques you can change a person appearance to make them appear more attractive. This is especially noticed in male modeling when you get the appearance of 'hard chiselled abs' etc. Those abs really are there... but they don't look like that irl.++Another important aspect in respect to choosing someone which in my opinion goes hand-in-hand with appearance is smell. I love when a girl puts on THAT perfume with THAT smell and it drives me insane to just want to keep smelling her.

 

[Kronos5253]

Overall, society in general seems to values looks over any other aspect about a person when selecting that person for a mate. Do you think looks are a little less important in the "intelligensia" community. I feel like I am the only person that seems to disregard looks when assessing other qualities about a person, like if their personality matches with my personality and there are some personality traits that I like about the person that are not necessarily characteristic of my personality. A lot of people say that looks are not as important as any other trait, but won't really mean it, for highly attractive people are put up on a pedestal. Even in certain job interviews, the most attractive person is likely to get the job. I weigh in looks, but for me their not as important as other qualities of a person that will remain permanent throughout their life,and will less likely wither away over time as opposed to a persons looks. For me , looks our 10 percent important , and personality is 90 percent important. What about the rest of you? Is beauty as equally important as other characteristics about a person, or do you place stronger emphasis on beauty or personality when selecting a mate?

IMO, everything is equally important... Personality matters, but a relationship won't last long if there's no physical attraction... Likewise, looks matter, but the relationship isn't going to last long if you have nothing in common and you can't hold a conversation for more then 2 mins...

So for me I'd say 50/50, although generally I look at (at least partially) looks first (eyes and smile), and personality directly after. Everything else is pretty even after that.

 

[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.