Having taste = shallow.... / Hating on attractive girls....

[Shangri-laschild]

As for the looks test... the problem is in trying to *force* yourself into liking anyone. That person who isn't so great to look at on first glance might grow on you once you've gotten to know each other better, but then again maybe not.

"Dude, I know you like cars so I'll make a car analogy on your situation with women.

First off, dating a girl you're not all that attracted to just for the sake of dating someone sounds like a kind of crappy thing to do. If I ever found out a guy was dating me because he hadn't found anyone better who would take him yet, I'd kick his ass to the curb (possibly literally depending on how serious about things he may have seemed). Honestly, I would never flat out date someone who I wasn't interested in being friends with outside of the attraction. If you're not outright attracted to them, then no you shouldn't push yourself to be attracted to them or to try to start something more than friendship with them. But if you find them interesting and would enjoy hanging out with them, do so. If attraction will come, it will come. It all depends on how you're pursuing things. Leaving yourself open to later becoming attracted to someone is one thing. Only staying around them on the off chance that you might is different.

Secondly, there is nothing wrong with not settling. So long as you evaluate your standards and don't make them impossibly high. You don't want to be like those girls with the lists who expect a guy to live up to the list or it's a no go and miss other chances that they would have liked just as much if not more than the list guy. Prioritize what's important. Some things are deal breakers and it's ok to have those. But keep in mind what you could happily not mind given the right person and make sure not to miss chances because of it.

I've known a number of people of various attractiveness levels and if someone is hot but a complete ass, that's far more of a turn-off than if someone has a stellar personality but a crappy body type.

The opposite can also be true. I've met people who I wouldn't have thought were all that attractive just having seen them in photos without meeting or just seeing them in passing in a serious situation. But once you meet them in an environment where you can really see their personality, they are gorgeous. And no not in that "she's got a great personality" sort of way but in a physical way too.

[Boozy]

Agreed! My sister's a librarian, and she's beautiful. I'm not just saying that, either. It's almost always the first thing people say to me after meeting her.

[guywithashovel]

I'm a librarian, and after being in the profession for a while and going to a few librarian conferences, I can tell you there are some very nice looking ladies in this field.

[Racket_Man]

I'd have to actually agree with this, if there was a plain jane that was smart and shared many of my interests Vs a babe that scoffed at many things I liked and was an ass, I'd rather take the plain jane....

and that is type that I datedin HS/married. yeah there were the pretty ones, the cheerleaders/pompom girls, etc. but these ALL seemed to be out of my league.

one of my GFs was exactly the stereo-typical librarian type. quiet, not very attactive (in most eyes), unassuming and very plain. but for Jr./Sr. Prom she got a little "made up", nice prom dress and was stunning (so comfirmed by others who only knew her as a "plain jane")

There was one woman that I worked around. during the week she was all "made up" with tons of makeup, hiar done up nice,heels, short skirts, etc. one weekend I had to go into work to catch up on some projects. this woman was there also BUT without all of the "extras". VERY PLAIN in sweats and no extras (kinda ugly lookin IMHO)

[Gravekeeper]

Except that the statement was an absolute, and we know that there are exceptions, meaning that it is wrong.

Ehhh, no offence but thats little nitpicky. You know what I meant. -.-

If anything the statement was a summary of the article and while it may be generalized, it is likely true for the majority.

You co-worker is a twit. There are lots of people I can agree are attractive but "not my thing." Which covers the vast majority of women and not just a few men.

No argument there. Just observing that I have never once had that particular conversation with a guy. But have had it with many female friends and coworkers. The female mind is detail oriented. The male mind is......decidedly not. I'm not very good at being a Guy(tm) myself so I can only work from my observations of both genders.

Men ask you if you think the forest is beautiful. Women ask you which trees in particular and why.

In my case, bodybuilders. There are some bodybuilders out there who have stunning physiques and the classic chiseled features, but I don't really go for buffed out guys, so they don't do anything for me. But I can certainly step back and see how, for someone who either liked or didn't dislike the look, they would be considered attractive or "hot".

I'm similar in regards to classic identifiers of the female physique. Its a matter of extremes I guess. Some people love a particular attribute and must maximize it ( Massive biceps, huge breasts, whatever ). Others find the extremes offputting and would perfer to stay within normal operating parameters.

[Andara Bledin]

Well then I guess every man that likes models celebs etc is gay then....

Except that wasn't what was said.

If the person in question only ever expresses interest in specific models, and not non-models who happen to be similarly attractive, then there's a good chance there's something else going on.

^-.-^

[HEMI6point1]

I won't claim to believe this; it's just one of those things I've heard somewhere and somewhen etc...

Some believe that guys who only show interest in women who are hopelessly out of their league and/or famous aren't as straight as they like to believe themselves to be, and are putting up a front.

Well then I guess every man that likes models celebs etc is gay then....

[guywithashovel]

One person left a comment that I thought was interesting, but sadly true: When a man fails a woman's physical attraction test, she has taste. When a woman fails a man's physical attraction test, he's a shallow hal.

From my experience, when people complain a lot about being overlooked because of their looks, they themselves are often just as shallow as the ones they criticize, sometimes even more so.

Example: I've been on and off an online dating site for a while. Often I'll see a profile where the woman says "I've always been the ugly duckling" or "I wish someone could see me for more than my waist size." It'll usually turn out that she's saying "I wish someone who looks like he just stepped off the pages of a Macy's ad could see me for more than my waist size.

One time, I requested communication with one of those women. Now, on this site, you go through several "stages" of communication. Also, you can set it up so that matches can only see your photo if they get to a later stage of communication. At this point in time, my profile was set so that my photo was only visible once the match got to the second stage of communication with me.

As soon as we got to that second stage of communication and she saw my photo, she closed me out. I guess even "ugly ducklings" and "big waist sizes" have standards, too.

[Andara Bledin]

It is neither wrong nor right. I would say it very much depends on the person.

Except that the statement was an absolute, and we know that there are exceptions, meaning that it is wrong.

But, yes, it does very much depend upon the person, so making it a blanket statement is still wrong.

You co-worker is a twit. There are lots of people I can agree are attractive but "not my thing." Which covers the vast majority of women and not just a few men.

In my case, bodybuilders. There are some bodybuilders out there who have stunning physiques and the classic chiseled features, but I don't really go for buffed out guys, so they don't do anything for me. But I can certainly step back and see how, for someone who either liked or didn't dislike the look, they would be considered attractive or "hot".

^-.-^

[Gravekeeper]

This is actually wrong.

It is neither wrong nor right. I would say it very much depends on the person. But I would also say that for the majority its probably not that bad advice wise. Like it or not, looks are important. So is personality. But if you have a hit on one and a fail on the other, you may be setting yourself up for long term difficulty.

As for me, I look at it as objective and Subjective beauty. A concept I've found many people don't seem to understand. Oddly, mostly females. I got grilled for half a shift by a female coworker once over why I could agree Angelina Jolie was attractive but not actually be attracted to her.

Hollywood beauty does utterly nothing for me nor does breast size or anything like that. Even I have some difficulty defining my tastes because its more I see it and go "Ah, there it is". Though I have observed it drawn towards quirky, imperfect ( every masterpiece should have a single flaw? -.- ) or exotic ( as in not painfully white like myself ).

[Iseeyouthere]

It seems like it is the Looks > Personality these days.
You both gotta look so pretty, your sparkles put the vampires to shame. -.-'

But if you are too pretty... you are a whore.
Don't mind me, but if I could, I would introduce sledgehammer to face with some people. That way, they can have a face to match their attitude.

But don't worry too much about it... You can always move to Australia. According to this person, we have lower standards.

[HYHYBT]

I won't claim to believe this; it's just one of those things I've heard somewhere and somewhen etc...

Some believe that guys who only show interest in women who are hopelessly out of their league and/or famous aren't as straight as they like to believe themselves to be, and are putting up a front.

[Hyena Dandy]

My fiance thinks the same; he doesn't mind it when guys chat me up, cuz he trusts me. I normally flash my ring and get the response of "he's a lucky guy". Cuz of my image issues, sometimes it really puzzles me when some sexy guy tells me I'm "hot"; especially if there's thinner, prettier women in the room.

Maybe they're picking up on your Ponyswag?




Anyway, here's my thing. If you'll outright dismiss the possibility of being with someone because you don't find them physically attractive, then yes, that is being shallow. But being attracted to, and WANTING to go out with a particularly attractive woman, isn't.

[bara]

Ill admit, that I think there has to be a physical attraction for a relationship to work. It doesnt have to be an OMG SHES HAWT type of thing.
But there has to be at least some physical attraction.

[Andara Bledin]

I looked up a few pics and while she certainly isn't ugly, she isn't beautiful either. Would I turn her down? Probably not LOL.

She's a bit odd-looking, to be honest. I remember when I first heard about her wondering what the hell all the fuss was about.

She's a great case showing how much a good personality can do to make a person more attractive.

^-.-^