Regarding this chubby girl thread

[Justinian]

I saw a lot of arguments saying not to be superficial and shallow. I used to be of the same opinion, I guess. Here's my question:

What difference does it make whether you're picky about someone's looks as opposed to his/her personality? What makes it superficial to like how someone looks as opposed to how someone acts? Isn't it ultimately the same principle - being picky about a personal preference?

I'm not trying to convince anyone of anything, I just felt like asking the rhetorical questions. I have no answers. It seems, though, that whether you're uptight about someone's looks or uptight about someone's personality, either way you're being "superficial." "What isn't superficial?" would be a better question, I think.

As for me? I go for smaller girls. I'm also not a fan of stretch marks. Dated a girl with them a while back. Fucking gross. Does that make me shallow? No more shallow than the guy who won't date a girl because she likes men with money and power.

tl;dr: to all you "deep" people who don't care a lot about looks: get off your high fucking horse. you're just as "bad" as the rest of us.

[Aragoni]

And this deserves a new thread, why?

[NapalmEnema]

Crazy idea - post this in that thread?

Oh that's right, you need to maximize the chance your unique and awesome thoughts would be read.

I didn't read them so lol.

[Justinian]

And this deserves a new thread, why?

It's a separate issue. It's not about dating a chubby girl, it's about what difference, if any, there is between "superficial" people who care about looks, and "superficial" people who care about personality.

[alfaroverall]

...so wait a minute. You're putting "liking someone for how they look" and "liking someone by how they act" on the same level? Really? You're trying to say that caring only about someone's appearance, which they can only partially control and which has fairly little to do with who they are as a person, is just as "bad" as caring about how someone acts, which is the very cornerstone of their identity? Really?

Now, if you're truly uptight about someone's personality, such as "I won't date a girl who does <insert action here>" and said action isn't something like cheating on you or stealing from you, that's different. It's still less superficial than functioning solely on the level of looks, since you're at least exercising discretion with respect to the actual person instead of just a wad of flesh, but it's still superficial. But to care about the general way a person acts, how they actually make you feel, etc. is infinitely less superficial than to care about how someone looks.

But I suppose a community like this struggles to think in that sense; the notion of a relationship with more complexity than a fuckbuddy doesn't seem to apply to most of you guys.

[NapalmEnema]

It's a separate issue. It's not about dating a chubby girl, it's about what difference, if any, there is between "superficial" people who care about looks, and "superficial" people who care about personality.

This isn't an orange, it's a tangerine!! Tastes almost the same, looks almost the same, smells almost the same but it's totally different!!

LOL

[Forgin]

Because looks get boring and fade after a while and the inside is the part you have to live with.

[Justinian]

...so wait a minute. You're putting "liking someone for how they look" and "liking someone by how they act" on the same level? Really? You're trying to say that caring only about someone's appearance, which they can only partially control and which has fairly little to do with who they are as a person, is just as "bad" as caring about how someone acts, which is the very cornerstone of their identity? Really?

No. I'm questioning how people rank these things on their fuck-o-meter. Obviously a personality or lack thereof can be a turnoff, but it seems to me to be a personal preference. Rather, it's silly to call people "shallow" just because they rank things differently than you.

[Justinian]

Because looks get boring and fade after a while and the inside is the part you have to live with.

People's personalities and attitudes change over time just as much as their looks do.

[alfaroverall]

No. I'm questioning how people rank these things on their fuck-o-meter. Obviously a personality or lack thereof can be a turnoff, but it seems to me to be a personal preference. Rather, it's silly to call people "shallow" just because they rank things differently than you.
And I'm questioning the very concept of a fuck-o-meter, as you'll see in my edit. I'm actually quite opposed to saying "you know, I want to fuck this chick", proceeding to do so, and then subsequently proceeding to dump her as you get bored and then move on to fuck someone else. That's probably part of why I don't wind up in relationships, because, lacking that fuck-o-meter instinct, I don't pursue them hardly at all. That, and I am quite literally socially retarded to some extent, with a diagnosis to prove it.

[Justinian]

And I'm questioning the very concept of a fuck-o-meter, as you'll see in my edit. I'm actually quite opposed to saying "you know, I want to fuck this chick", proceeding to do so, and then subsequently proceeding to dump her as you get bored and then move on to fuck someone else.

...why?

[Agrathan]

Because looks get boring and fade after a while and the inside is the part you have to live with.

he's 23 he don't get the live with part a life time can be a very long time

[Haeso]

...why?

If you have to ask, I have to pity you ape man.

[alfaroverall]

...why?
It would take a very skilled psychoanalyst to answer the question "why?" with respect to things like these.

Put differently, I couldn't tell you. But the fact that so many people seem to think differently scares me a bit.

[Nevron]

Here's your answer:

Main Entry:
su·per·fi·cial
Pronunciation:
\ˌsü-pər-ˈfi-shəl\
Function:
adjective
Etymology:
Middle English, from Late Latin superficialis, from Latin superficies
Date:
15th century
1 a (1): of, relating to, or located near a surface (2): lying on, not penetrating below, or affecting only the surface <superficial wounds> bBritish of a unit of measure : square <superficial foot>
2 a: concerned only with the obvious or apparent : shallow b: seen on the surface : external c: presenting only an appearance without substance or significance
— su·per·fi·cial·ly \-ˈfi-sh(ə-)lē\ adverb

[Sorontar]

Superficial: only on the surface of something

If you are looking into someones personality you have gone beyond the visual aspect, beyond the superficial.

[Justinian]

It would take a very skilled psychoanalyst to answer the question "why?" with respect to things like these.

Put differently, I couldn't tell you.

Well, fair enough. And for the record, I agree about the psychoanalyst bit.

That's all I'm questioning though - there seems to be a huge disconnect between people like me (seen as assholes, jerks, sociopaths, users, selfish, whatever the hell else) and people like you, who at least claim to have some "higher" perspective on love and life. To me, humans are just humans. There's nothing really particularly special about any of them. If you find someone who agrees with you a lot, who thinks the same way, who has the same opinions - fine. Just don't go around harping on people who don't give a good goddamn about that shit, since it's just as transient as the "looks" most people claim are transient.

Two years ago, I was a borderline Republican. I found Ron Paul, and my entire outlook on life changed completely. The point (you ask?) is that people eventually change inside just as much as on the outside.

So, what's the point of going more for a good personality as opposed to going more for good looks? There is none. It's personal preference.

tl;dr from OP still applies.

[Justinian]

Superficial: only on the surface of something

If you are looking into someones personality you have gone beyond the visual aspect, beyond the superficial.

How? This is what I'm asking. How is it less superficial?

My argument is that personalities and attitudes can and do change and morph over time just as much as the visual aspect can and does.

So, the argument that someone's personality is somehow "deeper" or below the surface doesn't seem to work.

[Warhawk]

Superficial: only on the surface of something

If you are looking into someones personality you have gone beyond the visual aspect, beyond the superficial.

I dont want to come across of the totally superficial side of the spectrum, I'm not, but you have to have an attraction to someone.

A total knockout that is also and asshole becomes less attractive.

Someone you are not initially attracted to can become far more attractive after you know them more deeply (heh..).

Its ike a points scale.

Total 10 on looks
-6 for being an asshole
Becomes a 4 overall.

Someone who cant keep themself up doesnt have respect for themself, barring the cases where it is a genetic thing. There are a lot of people that just let themselves go and are a mess. That doesnt mean everyone needs to be hard bodies but for the love of yourself, you can keep as fit as possible for your body typse, and not just be a mess.

[Nevron]

People have more control over how they act than they have over how they look. Don't get me wrong, I place a rather large emphasis on looks - but I acknowledge that putting too much emphasis on it is shallow compared to putting too much emphasis on personality.

[Justinian]

People have more control over how they act than they have over how they look. Don't get me wrong, I place a rather large emphasis on looks - but I acknowledge that putting too much emphasis on it is shallow compared to putting too much emphasis on personality.

How you look is a reflection of how you act. /your argument

But again, my gentle snowflakes, you're arguing points more suited to the other thread.

What I'm questioning is: why is the personality, which is just as transient and open to change as looks, considered somehow deeper or a more noble thing to pursue as opposed to the purely physical aspect of a person?

[Erroneous]

What's ultimately the point of fucking or having a relationship?

Procreating.

And the best way to tell the fitness of another person's genes is their outward appearance. There is a strong argument to be made that appearance is a more valid way to rank mates than personality.

[alfaroverall]

Well, fair enough. And for the record, I agree about the psychoanalyst bit.

That's all I'm questioning though - there seems to be a huge disconnect between people like me (seen as assholes, jerks, sociopaths, users, selfish, whatever the hell else) and people like you, who at least claim to have some "higher" perspective on love and life. To me, humans are just humans. There's nothing really particularly special about any of them. If you find someone who agrees with you a lot, who thinks the same way, who has the same opinions - fine. Just don't go around harping on people who don't give a good goddamn about that shit, since it's just as transient as the "looks" most people claim are transient.

Two years ago, I was a borderline Republican. I found Ron Paul, and my entire outlook on life changed completely. The point (you ask?) is that people eventually change inside just as much as on the outside.

So, what's the point of going more for a good personality as opposed to going more for good looks? There is none. It's personal preference.

tl;dr from OP still applies.
Fair enough. I'm not criticizing you either. I'm just a bit sad for the sake of the people you're going to hurt for your own desires. But then, there are much worse things to be sad about.

Admittedly though, personality isn't as transient as looks. Looks WILL pass before a person dies. Personality may or may not do so.

The other thing is that, if you're in a relationship at the level of personality, the person gets under your skin, if you will. Their personality bends yours. This happens with more platonic relationships (i.e. friendships) as well, but generally to a lesser extent. That experience of seeing a bit more into who you are through the way that another person affects you is one of the much more interesting things that life has to offer. This is tied into the changes in another person's personality, which may in fact be driven by you, involuntarily. When those changes are not at all driven by you, long-term relationships (especially marriages) start to see disconnects, and you get situations like my parents have, where they've lost almost all of their romantic connection but they remain together primarily for pragmatic purposes and also because of their devotion to one another (which has little to no romantic basis).

That sure did turn into a rant quickly...
What's ultimately the point of fucking or having a relationship?

Procreating.

And the best way to tell the fitness of another person's genes is their outward appearance. There is a strong argument to be made that appearance is a more valid way to rank mates than personality.
I would say that, based on evidence, such as lifetime relationships between people who never choose to procreate, human relationships are no longer solely for the sake of procreation. In the end, that and survival (food, water, etc.) is all that our existence comes down to, and yet with the removal of such factors as starvation, our existence seems to become inherently more complex. Philosophy emerges. We have a drive to know. We have a concept of love (I only make this point because some form of love vs. lust seems to be a rare cultural universal). To argue that such things and more can exist in beings whose sole purpose is to survive long enough to bear offspring seems absurd to me. Perhaps I'm the deluded one, however...

[samuraibane]

...so wait a minute. You're putting "liking someone for how they look" and "liking someone by how they act" on the same level? Really? You're trying to say that caring only about someone's appearance, which they can only partially control and which has fairly little to do with who they are as a person, is just as "bad" as caring about how someone acts, which is the very cornerstone of their identity? Really?

Now, if you're truly uptight about someone's personality, such as "I won't date a girl who does <insert action here>" and said action isn't something like cheating on you or stealing from you, that's different. It's still less superficial than functioning solely on the level of looks, since you're at least exercising discretion with respect to the actual person instead of just a wad of flesh, but it's still superficial. But to care about the general way a person acts, how they actually make you feel, etc. is infinitely less superficial than to care about how someone looks.

But I suppose a community like this struggles to think in that sense; the notion of a relationship with more complexity than a fuckbuddy doesn't seem to apply to most of you guys.

QFT.

I was going to post something meaningful and eloquent. But someone beat me to it.

[Nevron]

How you look is a reflection of how you act. /your argument

Wrong. How someone acts does impact how they're perceived, but it does not impact how they actually look.

There are two base factors in how someone is perceived - how they look, and their personality. How they look, for the most part, is a fixed part of the equation - while the personality is a malleable part of the equation. Judging someone purely off of something they cannot as easily change and do not have as much control over is definitely more shallow in my opinion. I put plenty of emphasis on looks, so I think we somewhat agree in principle.

[Sorontar]

Dater 1- I will only go out with beautiful people
Dater 2- I will only go out with beautiful people who have great personalities.

Dater 1- Superficial
Dater 2- May be lonely for a long time but is not superficial as their preferences are more than skin deep.

Yes personalities change, although normally not as readily as looks, but take away personality and what do you have left? A piece of meat.

I call people superficial because it is the correct use of the word. If someone gets upset about that, it is their problem not mine. I haven't laid any judgement down on them, they have done that themselves more often than not.

I call men who sleep around slags and they often get offended. I'm applying societies term for an action to both sexes equally. If a bloke cannot deal with that then it's not my problem.

[Erroneous]

I would say that, based on evidence, such as lifetime relationships between people who never choose to procreate, human relationships are no longer solely for the sake of procreation. In the end, that and survival (food, water, etc.) is all that our existence comes down to, and yet with the removal of such factors as starvation, our existence seems to become inherently more complex. Philosophy emerges. We have a drive to know. We have a concept of love (I only make this point because some form of love vs. lust seems to be a rare cultural universal). To argue that such things and more can exist in beings whose sole purpose is to survive long enough to bear offspring seems absurd to me. Perhaps I'm the deluded one, however...

That's true and I agree. The most important thing to me in any long-term relationship is if I can stand to be around them for any length of time. But, I also tend to like to look back at the more animal side of our existence. I think viewed through that lens pure superficiality makes a lot of sense.

Edit: There's another form of superficiality which I also think plays a role in the original question of whether or not you would date a chubby person. Ultimately, who you date is a form of reflection on your own merit. Its one thing to bang a fat girl in a drunken stupor. Its quite another to be willing to put your brand on a heifer and let the world know this is the best you can do. This is a more damning type of superficiality, but as an egoist I have to admit it has crossed my mind.

[Marrik]

How you look is a reflection of how you act. /your argument

But again, my gentle snowflakes, you're arguing points more suited to the other thread.

What I'm questioning is: why is the personality, which is just as transient and open to change as looks, considered somehow deeper or a more noble thing to pursue as opposed to the purely physical aspect of a person?

because appearance is how you look, personality is how you ARE.


its not set in stone, no. but for some of us, its more important how our interactions with someone are than how they look.

[Justinian]

Fair enough. I'm not criticizing you either. I'm just a bit sad for the sake of the people you're going to hurt for your own desires. But then, there are much worse things to be sad about.

I don't get sad about much of anything. I tell the girls I "see" up front who I am and how I am, but they somehow think that I'm just lonely or some bullshit and try to change me with their love. They hang around longer than they should and they get walked on. They should learn from the experience and instead focus on living life rather than pursuing some nebulous concept of "love".

I don't feel bad for them and I don't feel bad for myself. It's their choice to be deluded.

Admittedly though, personality isn't as transient as looks. Looks WILL pass before a person dies. Personality may or may not do so.

Looks will pass, sure. I'm not so sure personality is as set in stone, so I guess we're in agreement here.

The other thing is that, if you're in a relationship at the level of personality, the person gets under your skin, if you will. Their personality bends yours. This happens with more platonic relationships (i.e. friendships) as well, but generally to a lesser extent. That experience of seeing a bit more into who you are through the way that another person affects you is one of the much more interesting things that life has to offer. This is tied into the changes in another person's personality, which may in fact be driven by you, involuntarily. When those changes are not at all driven by you, long-term relationships (especially marriages) start to see disconnects, and you get situations like my parents have, where they've lost almost all of their romantic connection but they remain together primarily for pragmatic purposes and also because of their devotion to one another (which has little to no romantic basis).

Agreed completely. It is an interesting part of life, but it's just as selfish as dating a girl for her looks alone. The only difference is that you're not lying to yourself when you just want to bang a girl. When you "fall in love", you're doing yourself a disservice. It's a wonderful thing, to be in love, but it's not what our culture expects it to be. It's just as transient as looks.



I would say that, based on evidence, such as lifetime relationships between people who never choose to procreate, human relationships are no longer solely for the sake of procreation. In the end, that and survival (food, water, etc.) is all that our existence comes down to, and yet with the removal of such factors as starvation, our existence seems to become inherently more complex. Philosophy emerges. We have a drive to know. We have a concept of love (I only make this point because some form of love vs. lust seems to be a rare cultural universal). To argue that such things and more can exist in beings whose sole purpose is to survive long enough to bear offspring seems absurd to me. Perhaps I'm the deluded one, however...

I had a similar thought the other day. We have more time to sit around and bullshit like the Greeks did (fat lotta good that did them). I have come to the preliminary conclusion that, like any other invention of the idle human mind (read: God), love and romance are delusions. Maybe some people are actually capable of it, but we don't know enough about the brain to make any kind of educated decision one way or the other.

In any event, the question still stands: why is personality considered so sacrosanct when pursuing a relationship?

[Llewen]

There's a hell of a lot more to this issue than simple "looks" vs. "personality". "looks" are also dependent on culture and socio-economic status. Personality is also dependent on education, which is dependent on culture and socio-economic status. How a person looks often says a great deal about what they value and the OP is correct, both looks and personality change with time. There are also both physical, and personality traits a person can do nothing about.

The real question is, what are you looking for in a relationship? Are you looking for sex, or are you looking for friendship? Are you looking for someone to become part of your life, or are you just browsing? How are you compartementalizing your life? What are the limits you are placing on your engagement in this relationship? Is this person a friend at work, or at church, or at school, or at a club, with no connection to the rest of your life? How much of your life are you willing to share with this person?

The anatomy of attraction is extremely complex, to reduce it to the dichotomy of "looks" vs. "personality", is to simplify it to the point of meaninglessness.

[Justinian]

Dater 1- I will only go out with beautiful people
Dater 2- I will only go out with beautiful people who have great personalities.

Dater 1- Superficial
Dater 2- May be lonely for a long time but is not superficial as their preferences are more than skin deep.

Yes personalities change, although normally not as readily as looks, but take away personality and what do you have left? A piece of meat.

I call people superficial because it is the correct use of the word. If someone gets upset about that, it is their problem not mine. I haven't laid any judgement down on them, they have done that themselves more often than not.

I call men who sleep around slags and they often get offended. I'm applying societies term for an action to both sexes equally. If a bloke cannot deal with that then it's not my problem.

How is depending on personality any less superficial than depending on looks? Nobody has yet to give a satisfactory answer to this. All I've seen is personal preferences, which only serves to hammer home my original point: the philosophy of falling in love with someone is a very odd set of idea(l)s since personality is just as malleable as looks.

In addition, I'm not saying that I only talk to beautiful women. I'm just saying those are the only ones I find worth pursuing. If a chubby or fat girl hit on me, I'd talk to her, but I have no interest - even if we're otherwise a perfect match. Is that any more superficial than not sleeping with a beautiful woman because you don't mesh particularly well mentally? I'm not convinced that it is.

[Nevron]

Nobody has yet to give a satisfactory answer to this.

Yes we have, you're just ignoring them.

[Justinian]

Yes we have, you're just ignoring them.

You're giving personal preference. I want to know what objectively makes placing a higher priority on personality somehow "better" than looks.

I'm hoping some of you will sit down and really think about it - I tried coming up with a good reason to pursue looks more than personality, but I found it to be more of an idea that I just "had" without really thinking about it. I think it's called referential learning or some nonsense.

[Lioness]

Yes we have, you're just ignoring them.

I'm with Nevron on this one...

You were given sufficient evidence as to why you were wrong within the first 15 posts...

For your clarification:

Depending on personality is less superficial because superficial means depending on what is on the surface (i.e. looks).

If you truly think that looks and a person's actual identity are on the same level, you are pretty fucked up.

[samuraibane]

How is depending on personality any less superficial than depending on looks? Nobody has yet to give a satisfactory answer to this. All I've seen is personal preferences, which only serves to hammer home my original point: the philosophy of falling in love with someone is a very odd set of idea(l)s since personality is just as malleable as looks.

In addition, I'm not saying that I only talk to beautiful women. I'm just saying those are the only ones I find worth pursuing. If a chubby or fat girl hit on me, I'd talk to her, but I have no interest - even if we're otherwise a perfect match. Is that any more superficial than not sleeping with a beautiful woman because you don't mesh particularly well mentally? I'm not convinced that it is.

When you need an actual ANSWER, a good thing to do first is collect facts instead of stating your OPINION and trying to FORCE it to appear as fact.

Superficial \Su`per*fi"cial\, a. [L. superficialis: cf. F. superficiel. See Superficies.]
Of or pertaining to the superficies, or surface; lying on the surface; shallow; not deep; as, a superficial color; a superficial covering; superficial measure or contents; superficial tillage.

Unless they are a stand-up comic, an actress, or a TV/Radio personality, I highly DOUBT that their personality is ever going to be more obvious and "on the surface" than their physical appearance. Even if they *ARE* making their living on their "personality" it is highly likely the "outward" or "public" personality is a facade. Therefore, it is not normally going to be the "REAL" and underlying personality that you see on the outside.

Basically, I am saying your entire question and your "understanding" of the term "superficial" is completely erroneous, and therefore your question is invalid.

There. Now your question has actually been ANSWERED, you pompous twit.

[Death's Chill]

One you control, the other you don't. That's why people hate to be turned down on their looks, they can do fuck all to change em.

[Smasher]

One you control, the other you don't. That's why people hate to be turned down on their looks, they can do fuck all to change em.

we cant, damm i knew micheal jackson wasnt real...

i think something needs to be cleared up on this thread

what do people consider

skinny
normal
curvey
chubby
fat
obese

etc

[Jimzs70]

Find a girl that was fat/ugly then got hot, but doesnt realize it yet.


niceee

[Justinian]

Find a girl that was fat/ugly then got hot, but doesnt realize it yet.


niceee

haha, yeah. I had one of them before. it's fun until she realizes she doesn't need to be used by you :P

[Justinian]

When you need an actual ANSWER, a good thing to do first is collect facts instead of stating your OPINION and trying to FORCE it to appear as fact.

Superficial \Su`per*fi"cial\, a. [L. superficialis: cf. F. superficiel. See Superficies.]
Of or pertaining to the superficies, or surface; lying on the surface; shallow; not deep; as, a superficial color; a superficial covering; superficial measure or contents; superficial tillage.

Unless they are a stand-up comic, an actress, or a TV/Radio personality, I highly DOUBT that their personality is ever going to be more obvious and "on the surface" than their physical appearance. Even if they *ARE* making their living on their "personality" it is highly likely the "outward" or "public" personality is a facade. Therefore, it is not normally going to be the "REAL" and underlying personality that you see on the outside.

Basically, I am saying your entire question and your "understanding" of the term "superficial" is completely erroneous, and therefore your question is invalid.

There. Now your question has actually been ANSWERED, you pompous twit.

First off, to your insult: suck my AIDS.

That was fun! Okay, getting down to business.

I'm not saying my opinion is a fact, although if you're weak-minded enough to be defensive about it and start talking down to me, maybe I'm doing something right.

At any rate - your definition of superficial makes no difference. What I'm arguing is that basing your perception of people on their personality is no more or less superficial than basing it on their looks. "Superficial" carries with it a certain connotation that I'm not sure it had before. It's part of what appears to me to be the ball-and-chain type of existence - while I'm much happier when I'm not bound down by something, other people seem to want to be bound. Maybe other people don't see it as being bound, but that's just what it is to me. Even if I have the greatest relationship in the history of love, I'll still see it as being bound to one person forever. That doesn't make sense to me. Why would I voluntarily bind myself in any way shape or form, other than to not get arrested, beat up, etc?

You started by saying I should start by collecting facts - there are no facts to collect. That seems to be the biggest stumbling block we're having - you think giving deference to personality somehow isn't superficial based on a dictionary definition, and I'm questioning whether or not giving deference to anything is superficial.

Superficial applies to buildings, not people.

[Ziegler]

Didnt read the thread.

Judging from porn sites....physical looks being attractive...is sujective.

Just because you dont find chubby females attractive doesnt mean they arent to some other person.

Then there is the whole survival of the fittest and it's nature telling us that they arent a good mate.

[Death's Chill]

we cant, damm i knew micheal jackson wasnt real...

i think something needs to be cleared up on this thread

what do people consider

skinny
normal
curvey
chubby
fat
obese

etc

I should of said, you can't without investing ridiculous amounts of money/time/effort into it, and yet still not even getting a firm guarantee that it will be an improvement; while personality is just what you do, and how you do it. That can be infinitely easier to change.

[akrippler]

we cant, damm i knew micheal jackson wasnt real...

i think something needs to be cleared up on this thread

what do people consider

skinny
normal
curvey
chubby
fat
obese

etc

The list actually goes

skinny
normal
thick
fatty mc fat fat

Contrary to popular belief thick can be a good thing.

[Justinian]

I should of said, you can't without investing ridiculous amounts of money/time/effort into it, and yet still not even getting a firm guarantee that it will be an improvement; while personality is just what you do, and how you do it. That can be infinitely easier to change.

jesus, what? Changing my personality is the hardest thing in the world to do. You first must admit to yourself that you have a problem or that you're somehow incorrect, and then you have to go through a long, arduous process of self-renewal and recasting dies. It's damn-near impossible.

Losing weight requires not eating as much and taking a fucking 20 minute walk every night.

And, like people have pointed out, the way you look is a strong indicator of your personality. If you're a fat sack of shit (barring medical calamities), you can't get out of your own way. It means you're probably selfish, self-centered, and greedy. You may not think you are, but you are. Your actions speak more loudly about who you are than your thoughts and feelings.

Everyone is perfectly capable of lying themselves into a living, walking comatose person. Total disconnect between their minds and reality.

[Erroneous]

One you control, the other you don't. That's why people hate to be turned down on their looks, they can do fuck all to change em.

Actions speak louder than words - Many of the most important component of physical attractiveness are results of your actions. Dropping that second piece of chocolate cake, getting to the gym a few times a week, having decent grooming habits.

I can understand if you are short or cross eyed or something, but a lot about who you are as a person is shown through your looks. Things that people find attractive about someone's personality: a sense of humor, intellect, etc. are arguably more innate than your looks.

[Justinian]

Actions speak louder than words - Many of the most important component of physical attractiveness are results of your actions. Dropping that second piece of chocolate cake, getting to the gym a few times a week, having decent grooming habits.

I can understand if you are short or cross eyed or something, but a lot about who you are as a person is shown through your looks. Things that people find attractive about someone's personality: a sense of humor, intellect, etc. are arguably more innate than your looks.

There's a disconnect in your logic I see here. I'm not being argumentative, just take it as constructive criticism:

Actions speak louder than words.

...are arguably more innate than your looks.

Your actions guide how you look. Therefore, they're exactly the same in terms of "depth" or innateness. One just lags behind the other for the most part. Again, the argument goes "personality is more innate than looks." "Why?" "Because it is."

EDIT: again, barring medical/genetic defects.

[Lachrymose]

fuck you. i like fat girls. does it make me shallow if i won't even look at a girl unless she weighs at least twice as much as me?

[Jimzs70]

tig ol biddies > muffin tops

[Haeso]

What's ultimately the point of fucking or having a relationship?

Procreating.

And the best way to tell the fitness of another person's genes is their outward appearance. There is a strong argument to be made that appearance is a more valid way to rank mates than personality.

... sure, if she has big hips she's more likely to have babiez. Sorry, that's absurd. It's motherly instincts and such that attract on a primal level, just like the ability to provide/protect is a primal attraction for female to men. Taking any of these too far however and it becomes shallow indeed.

When looking for a relationship, looks for me have to be A: Unavailable (IE the internets) B: Good enough for me to not immediately be turned off. Under A if i got to know the person and started to develop romantic feelings before I saw what she actually looks like instead of just descriptions, she would automatically look "better" to me than she would otherwise, an intellectual attraction makes the physical less important, not to the point where it doesn't matter, you still have to be physically attracted at least a little in order for your intellectual/romantic connection to take precedence of course. Under B she would have to actually look good enough for me to bother approaching her, how attractive she has to look personally is based on context. If I'm out at a bar for example, a girl would have to be incredibly attractive for me to even consider it. However, if a girl was at say my local hobby shop playing 40k, my requirements for looks drop through the floor, because she has instantly become at least somewhat attractive on a personality level.

TL;DR looks and context(personality) are both important, depending on the situation one is more important than the other. As if someone is fugly and not participating in something you enjoy, what would make you want to get to know her in the first place right?

Fuck, I just replied seriously to this retarded thread. Going to kill myself.

[Erroneous]

Your actions guide how you look. Therefore, they're exactly the same in terms of "depth" or innateness. One just lags behind the other for the most part. Again, the argument goes "personality is more innate than looks." "Why?" "Because it is."

EDIT: again, barring medical/genetic defects.

Huh? I think I was showing that in both looks and personality some things are innate and some things the product of effort. Viewing someone holistically, both should be taken into consideration to determine their "worth." I wasn't making an effort to say one is more important than the other. I was responding to a post which made it seem that looks were wholly innate so would necessarily be less important than personality, unless you believe my first assertion that genetic quality is an important consideration of mate selection. I was strengthening my argument (and yours I think) by saying that even separate from genetic quality there is something to be learned by one's outward appearance of who they are.

[alfaroverall]

Warning: this post is kind of a wall of text, and there is no tl;dr version to be had, since I have no idea how to summarize it.
I don't get sad about much of anything.
If this was phrased correctly (which I rather doubt) then this is more frightening than anything.
I tell the girls I "see" up front who I am and how I am, but they somehow think that I'm just lonely or some bullshit and try to change me with their love. They hang around longer than they should and they get walked on. They should learn from the experience and instead focus on living life rather than pursuing some nebulous concept of "love".

I don't feel bad for them and I don't feel bad for myself. It's their choice to be deluded.
That's not quite as bad, but you're still taking advantage of people in the end.
Agreed completely. It is an interesting part of life, but it's just as selfish as dating a girl for her looks alone. The only difference is that you're not lying to yourself when you just want to bang a girl. When you "fall in love", you're doing yourself a disservice. It's a wonderful thing, to be in love, but it's not what our culture expects it to be. It's just as transient as looks.
You see, the notion that that is selfish is one that I disagree with altogether. That change in oneself and the affirmation of identity that derives from it is a personal gain, yes, and thus if that was all that was happening in the relationship it would be selfish. But it is reciprocal. Something that is reciprocal cannot, by definition, be selfish. Similarly, if two people just want to fuck, they've acknowledged that that is all that is there, and they both climax when it all comes down to it, that's not selfish either. That is a fairly rare situation, however, and it generally doesn't last very long.

Plus, the thing about "falling in love" is actually far more simple than most people seem to think. It essentially comes down to these 4 things:
1. Does the person change you?
2. Do you change the person?
3. Do you feel that you can devote yourself fully to the person?
4. Do you feel that the person can devote himself/herself fully to you?

The situation in which one answers "yes" to all four of those questions is the true situation of "love", and I would presume (having never experienced it) that such a situation would include a fantastic and long-lasting feeling.



I had a similar thought the other day. We have more time to sit around and bullshit like the Greeks did (fat lotta good that did them). I have come to the preliminary conclusion that, like any other invention of the idle human mind (read: God), love and romance are delusions. Maybe some people are actually capable of it, but we don't know enough about the brain to make any kind of educated decision one way or the other.
You see, if all of our idle ventures were philosophical, and everything was solely theoretical, I would tend to agree with you. But that's not how things tend to turn out. The drive to know is what intrigues me, largely. We want to know what the most fundamental forces of the universe are. We want to know what happens when you mix this with this. We want to know if there is life out there in the universe. We want to know pretty much everything. To think that the drive to know is a delusion to me seems like a contradiction by definition.

Perhaps the drive to know is about all our "we're not going to die of starvation" lives have turned into. One could perhaps turn even love into a situation of seeking out knowledge, in this case with knowledge of oneself. The change in the other person is needed for the change in you to continue, and the knowledge gained on a daily basis from "love" requires the change in you to be continuous.

I have to say though, this thread has affected me in a peculiar way. It has been my belief that most guys go into the world with a shallow focus on looks, and then shift it to personality as they find that looks offer them little fulfillment (which tends to occur as soon as they acknowledge how shallow it is). You, however, have admitted quite directly that you are shallow, but in doing so have brought yourself some depth. Within my belief system, this is not possible, and yet here you are. This is something for me to ponder, most definitely...
How is depending on personality any less superficial than depending on looks? Nobody has yet to give a satisfactory answer to this. All I've seen is personal preferences, which only serves to hammer home my original point: the philosophy of falling in love with someone is a very odd set of idea(l)s since personality is just as malleable as looks.

In addition, I'm not saying that I only talk to beautiful women. I'm just saying those are the only ones I find worth pursuing. If a chubby or fat girl hit on me, I'd talk to her, but I have no interest - even if we're otherwise a perfect match. Is that any more superficial than not sleeping with a beautiful woman because you don't mesh particularly well mentally? I'm not convinced that it is.
Again, you would need a huge set of skills to determine why this is perceived as more superficial. A Ph D in psychology would probably walk out of post-grad with no idea how the hell to answer this question, primarily because there is no objective answer to the question. The fact of the matter is that the consensus of most people is that focusing on personality over looks is less shallow than doing the opposite. Consensus alone does not offer proof (the vast number of contrapositives to this statement makes this clear), but it does offer substantial evidence.

Although as it has been stated, there is a failure of language here: depending on looks is superficial by definition. There is some sense of connotation with the word "superficial" that is what you are trying to get at, but the denotation of the word matches "depending on looks" perfectly. Thus to say that it is not superficial is to make an argument that quite literally contradicts itself. We need a better word for this, and I quite honestly don't think English has one.

[jonyak]

Looks are more shallow because they will not always be there... but the person will be.

[Death's Chill]

jesus, what? Changing my personality is the hardest thing in the world to do. You first must admit to yourself that you have a problem or that you're somehow incorrect, and then you have to go through a long, arduous process of self-renewal and recasting dies. It's damn-near impossible.

Losing weight requires not eating as much and taking a fucking 20 minute walk every night.

And, like people have pointed out, the way you look is a strong indicator of your personality. If you're a fat sack of shit (barring medical calamities), you can't get out of your own way. It means you're probably selfish, self-centered, and greedy. You may not think you are, but you are. Your actions speak more loudly about who you are than your thoughts and feelings.

Everyone is perfectly capable of lying themselves into a living, walking comatose person. Total disconnect between their minds and reality.

I wasn't talking about weight, but facial structure, acne, hair, height... etc. Things that either cannot be changed at all, or cost incredible amounts of money or time and have no guarantee of success.

It's not hard to change my personality. I guess I'm just very adaptive or something?

[Justinian]

Warning: this post is kind of a wall of text, and there is no tl;dr version to be had, since I have no idea how to summarize it.

If this was phrased correctly (which I rather doubt) then this is more frightening than anything.

Yeah, which is why I'm labeled a socio/psychopath, when in reality I'm just a pretty regular guy who lacks depth of emotion. No biggz.

That's not quite as bad, but you're still taking advantage of people in the end.

The people take advantage of themselves by participating in a delusion. With my first love, I tried to participate too. It didn't work because I can't fake sincerity. Turns out it wasn't "love." See below for more details.

You see, the notion that that is selfish is one that I disagree with altogether. That change in oneself and the affirmation of identity that derives from it is a personal gain, yes, and thus if that was all that was happening in the relationship it would be selfish. But it is reciprocal. Something that is reciprocal cannot, by definition, be selfish. Similarly, if two people just want to fuck, they've acknowledged that that is all that is there, and they both climax when it all comes down to it, that's not selfish either. That is a fairly rare situation, however, and it generally doesn't last very long.

If the benefit(s) for the other person come as an afterthought or a consequence of getting what you want, it is still selfish. It's more like an exchange in the marketplace. Mutually beneficial, but completely motivated by self-interest and nothing more. Once both parties begin to think that there's something special about their exchange, that's where the feeling of "love" enters into it. It's nonsense. It's exchange, pure and simple, confounded by feelings of being comfortable and resisting change.

Plus, the thing about "falling in love" is actually far more simple than most people seem to think. It essentially comes down to these 4 things:
1. Does the person change you?
2. Do you change the person?
3. Do you feel that you can devote yourself fully to the person?
4. Do you feel that the person can devote himself/herself fully to you?

The situation in which one answers "yes" to all four of those questions is the true situation of "love", and I would presume (having never experienced it) that such a situation would include a fantastic and long-lasting feeling.

I respectfully disagree based on personal experience. I, too, was the exact same way as you before my first couple forays into it. I had all four twice, and neither times did it end up fantastic and long-lasting. It was just as selfish as any other exchange.


You see, if all of our idle ventures were philosophical, and everything was solely theoretical, I would tend to agree with you. But that's not how things tend to turn out. The drive to know is what intrigues me, largely. We want to know what the most fundamental forces of the universe are. We want to know what happens when you mix this with this. We want to know if there is life out there in the universe. We want to know pretty much everything. To think that the drive to know is a delusion to me seems like a contradiction by definition.

Yeah, I agree. I'm just not convinced that interpersonal relationships are as quantifiable and objective as, say, how a plane flies. Human action is by definition selfish. Even the "selfless" martyr who saves his family by giving his own life is acting in his own interest: the interest of saving his family. A selfless action is a contradiction in terms.

Perhaps the drive to know is about all our "we're not going to die of starvation" lives have turned into. One could perhaps turn even love into a situation of seeking out knowledge, in this case with knowledge of oneself. The change in the other person is needed for the change in you to continue, and the knowledge gained on a daily basis from "love" requires the change in you to be continuous.

Here I agree to an extent, but again, it's ultimately motivated by self-interest. Getting back to the OP, you don't "need" a person with a great personality to teach you a great deal about yourself, just like you don't need Shakira.

I have to say though, this thread has affected me in a peculiar way. It has been my belief that most guys go into the world with a shallow focus on looks, and then shift it to personality as they find that looks offer them little fulfillment (which tends to occur as soon as they acknowledge how shallow it is). You, however, have admitted quite directly that you are shallow, but in doing so have brought yourself some depth. Within my belief system, this is not possible, and yet here you are. This is something for me to ponder, most definitely...

For me, I tried a couple times with some little fillies who were great matches for me intellectually and so forth, but then I popped their clothes off and said DO NOT WANT. Looks offer me great fulfillment - the fulfillment of getting my rocks off as hard and often as possible. It's not an all-consuming purpose, it's just a priority for me. I have plenty of friends, my girlfriend doesn't need to be my best friend. She just needs to be a "good woman", so to speak.

What I'm beginning to question with this thread is what "we" believe to be superficial as opposed to "deep", and whether or not this is a meaningless distinction invented by poets and pop music in the past century or so.

Again, you would need a huge set of skills to determine why this is perceived as more superficial. A Ph D in psychology would probably walk out of post-grad with no idea how the hell to answer this question, primarily because there is no objective answer to the question. The fact of the matter is that the consensus of most people is that focusing on personality over looks is less shallow than doing the opposite. Consensus alone does not offer proof (the vast number of contrapositives to this statement makes this clear), but it does offer substantial evidence.

Right. I'm not one to follow the consensus. See: American democracy and political opinion in this country right now.

Although as it has been stated, there is a failure of language here: depending on looks is superficial by definition. There is some sense of connotation with the word "superficial" that is what you are trying to get at, but the denotation of the word matches "depending on looks" perfectly. Thus to say that it is not superficial is to make an argument that quite literally contradicts itself. We need a better word for this, and I quite honestly don't think English has one.

I agree. That's what my problem is with the word superficial. It's applied to something completely subjective when, by definition, it deals with only the objective.

[alfaroverall]

Yeah, which is why I'm labeled a socio/psychopath, when in reality I'm just a pretty regular guy who lacks depth of emotion. No biggz.
...now I see why this thread frightens me. You're almost the exact same as my father, and on an intellectual level (not at the level of facts but at the level of perspectives towards facts, opinions, etc.), I am almost the same as he is. My sentiments in this area are perhaps derived from my desire to not be, at an emotional and interpersonal level, the same as he is, which is to say a self-centered asshole who manipulates others constantly (in fact he's paid $80,000 a year almost exclusively to manipulate people as a claims adjustor).

The people take advantage of themselves by participating in a delusion. With my first love, I tried to participate too. It didn't work because I can't fake sincerity. Turns out it wasn't "love." See below for more details.
One cannot take advantage of oneself. That's a contradiction in terms.
If the benefit(s) for the other person come as an afterthought or a consequence of getting what you want, it is still selfish. It's more like an exchange in the marketplace. Mutually beneficial, but completely motivated by self-interest and nothing more. Once both parties begin to think that there's something special about their exchange, that's where the feeling of "love" enters into it. It's nonsense. It's exchange, pure and simple, confounded by feelings of being comfortable and resisting change.
The change in oneself cannot continue if it is not reciprocal. That was my point, and IMO it's a big part of why many relationships fail despite holding steady for many years. One party stops changing from the other, while the other party continues to change. 5 years later, BAM!, the former has no idea what the fuck happened to their old love. Again, I can link this to my parents; my mother has been changed by my father, but he has remained the same, and so they have a strong disconnect.
I respectfully disagree based on personal experience. I, too, was the exact same way as you before my first couple forays into it. I had all four twice, and neither times did it end up fantastic and long-lasting. It was just as selfish as any other exchange.

Then you didn't have all four things, you just thought you did. Seriously, reciprocal devotion is BY DEFINITION not selfish. It is perhaps impossible for humans, you could make that argument, but to make the argument that reciprocal devotion is selfish is just dumb.

Yeah, I agree. I'm just not convinced that interpersonal relationships are as quantifiable and objective as, say, how a plane flies. Human action is by definition selfish. Even the "selfless" martyr who saves his family by giving his own life is acting in his own interest: the interest of saving his family. A selfless action is a contradiction in terms.
All of the social sciences are less quantifiable and objective than the natural sciences. That doesn't make them not sciences, and that means that the drive to know that is associated with them is just as strong if not stronger. I would argue that it's probably stronger, because it is so personal: it is a desire to understand oneself, which is perhaps the ultimate goal of everyone.


Here I agree to an extent, but again, it's ultimately motivated by self-interest. Getting back to the OP, you don't "need" a person with a great personality to teach you a great deal about yourself, just like you don't need Shakira.
"Great personality" is more subjective than "great looks." To me "great personality" (with respect to romantic relationships) is, when all is said and done, the ability for all 4 of the above things to begin and remain constant for a long period of time. In some cases, that person could be an asshole when you first meet them; they don't have to necessarily be nice, good-natured, etc.

For me, I tried a couple times with some little fillies who were great matches for me intellectually and so forth, but then I popped their clothes off and said DO NOT WANT. Looks offer me great fulfillment - the fulfillment of getting my rocks off as hard and often as possible. It's not an all-consuming purpose, it's just a priority for me. I have plenty of friends, my girlfriend doesn't need to be my best friend. She just needs to be a "good woman", so to speak.
So you're looking for a fuckbuddy, in short. That's really what it comes down to with this. That's not a bad thing, but you're deluding yourself by thinking that there's anything more to it.





Right. I'm not one to follow the consensus. See: American democracy and political opinion in this country right now.
Casting aside consensus as a form of evidence altogether is a foolish move. Don't hop on the bandwagon and depend on it, but don't drop it either. It's a powerful tool.


I agree. That's what my problem is with the word superficial. It's applied to something completely subjective when, by definition, it deals with only the objective.
You should've stated this as soon as people started spouting dictionary definitions at you, because the entire time they, not you, were right.

[Crying Hyena]

Reading through this thread I can tell Justinian is banging more women than probably all of us, excluding the women who have posted, unless they bang women too. I put personality and looks on the same level. I've met wonderful women who I wasn't physically attracted to and I never will be and I've met gorgeous women who were the biggest bitches and/or emotionally messed up women I have ever met. The point was brought up that looks is an indicator of who the person is. That is very true. looking good takes alot of work. If a woman has taken the time to put that effort into her appearance, it's an indicator of who she is. The same goes for guys. The girl who is overweight knows it and it does weigh on their psyche no matter what they say. When I was overweight (I'm a guy if you haven't figured it out by reading my posts) it weighed heavily on me. I decided that I wanted my life to be different and healthier so I took the time to work out and eat right. That mentality them spilled over into other aspects of my life.

Our sexual attraction is genetic. It's how we determine if someone is fit for us to procreate with. Women love the upside down triangle shape of a man and yes men love that waist hip ratio that falls within a certain range. To date someone who you are not physically attracted to is just plain stupid. I don't care who you are, it plain stupid and none of you on these boards have done that. Those of you who are married, you first went after that person because they looked attractive to you and not because they had a wonderful personality. In sequence, we all go looks first,personality second. When I go out, I will sometime have one of my beautiful lady friends come out with me. Why? Women judge you on the women you hang out with. If you are seen (by both men and women) with an attractive woman, you've been validated. Other women want to know what you have because the girl you're with is beautiful so that means something. So they come up to you to figure it out. Now you are seen talking to more beautiful women and the cycle continues.

Women love to be sexy. This is why you find women with boyfriends, fiances, and husbands in bars and clubs. Although their significant other tells then that they are beautiful, it doesn't mean as much as the stranger who eye fucks her (several times actually fucks her) and validates that she still has it. It has nothing to do with how she feels toward her significant other, it has to do with her perception of herself.

On the personality side, I'm not going to be in a relationship with a women if she <insert whatever personality traits you don't like>. Usually you find this out after the initial one month fuck fest you've just had because you were attracted to that person first by how they looked. This goes for both men and women. For you ladies, how many times have you heard "He is pissing me off but I love his abs and girl, nobody fucks me like he does." and for the guys "Ahh! she a fucking bitch but she sure do give good head." but in the end, you leave the person because your personalities didn't match.

I said it in the other thread and I'll say it again here, if women wanted guys who were sensitive, then they would go for them, but they don't. So what does that say about the women? Which one is more important? Women seem to be telling us guys that they would rather have us be shallow than in tune with them and sensitive. A woman told me this after I found out, two months later, that she had a boyfriend. "He's a really nice guy but he doesn't make me feel like you do. I love him and I know he'll make a good husband but he doesn't excite me like you. I don't want to talk about this anymore." after that, she and I quit talking to each other. Her boyfriend never found out and now they're married.


This is why I put looks and personality on the same level.

[Zushakon]

Because looks get boring and fade after a while and the inside is the part you have to live with.

And personality's doesn't get boring? :rolleyes:

[AmonDominus]

Crazy idea - post this in that thread?

Oh that's right, you need to maximize the chance your unique and awesome thoughts would be read.

I didn't read them so lol.
Funny. Most users would say the same thing about your many many many "awesome" threads.

[FraBaktos]

I saw a lot of arguments saying not to be superficial and shallow. I used to be of the same opinion, I guess. Here's my question:

What difference does it make whether you're picky about someone's looks as opposed to his/her personality? What makes it superficial to like how someone looks as opposed to how someone acts? Isn't it ultimately the same principle - being picky about a personal preference?

I'm not trying to convince anyone of anything, I just felt like asking the rhetorical questions. I have no answers. It seems, though, that whether you're uptight about someone's looks or uptight about someone's personality, either way you're being "superficial." "What isn't superficial?" would be a better question, I think.

As for me? I go for smaller girls. I'm also not a fan of stretch marks. Dated a girl with them a while back. Fucking gross. Does that make me shallow? No more shallow than the guy who won't date a girl because she likes men with money and power.

tl;dr: to all you "deep" people who don't care a lot about looks: get off your high fucking horse. you're just as "bad" as the rest of us.

The guy is shallow because he was worried what other people were going to think of him if he was going out with a "chubby" girl. He obviously likes her, or he wouldn't have made the thread. If he lets what other people think decide his actions, then he is shallow...

[Justinian]

The guy is shallow because he was worried what other people were going to think of him if he was going out with a "chubby" girl. He obviously likes her, or he wouldn't have made the thread. If he lets what other people think decide his actions, then he is shallow...

ahhhh, now here's an answer I can get on board with! He is shallow because he can't think for himself. Very well done.

He is not shallow for not being attracted to a chubby girl.

[Justinian]

Reading through this thread I can tell Justinian is banging more women than probably all of us, excluding the women who have posted, unless they bang women too. I put personality and looks on the same level. I've met wonderful women who I wasn't physically attracted to and I never will be and I've met gorgeous women who were the biggest bitches and/or emotionally messed up women I have ever met. The point was brought up that looks is an indicator of who the person is. That is very true. looking good takes alot of work. If a woman has taken the time to put that effort into her appearance, it's an indicator of who she is. The same goes for guys. The girl who is overweight knows it and it does weigh on their psyche no matter what they say. When I was overweight (I'm a guy if you haven't figured it out by reading my posts) it weighed heavily on me. I decided that I wanted my life to be different and healthier so I took the time to work out and eat right. That mentality them spilled over into other aspects of my life.

Our sexual attraction is genetic. It's how we determine if someone is fit for us to procreate with. Women love the upside down triangle shape of a man and yes men love that waist hip ratio that falls within a certain range. To date someone who you are not physically attracted to is just plain stupid. I don't care who you are, it plain stupid and none of you on these boards have done that. Those of you who are married, you first went after that person because they looked attractive to you and not because they had a wonderful personality. In sequence, we all go looks first,personality second. When I go out, I will sometime have one of my beautiful lady friends come out with me. Why? Women judge you on the women you hang out with. If you are seen (by both men and women) with an attractive woman, you've been validated. Other women want to know what you have because the girl you're with is beautiful so that means something. So they come up to you to figure it out. Now you are seen talking to more beautiful women and the cycle continues.

Women love to be sexy. This is why you find women with boyfriends, fiances, and husbands in bars and clubs. Although their significant other tells then that they are beautiful, it doesn't mean as much as the stranger who eye fucks her (several times actually fucks her) and validates that she still has it. It has nothing to do with how she feels toward her significant other, it has to do with her perception of herself.

On the personality side, I'm not going to be in a relationship with a women if she <insert whatever personality traits you don't like>. Usually you find this out after the initial one month fuck fest you've just had because you were attracted to that person first by how they looked. This goes for both men and women. For you ladies, how many times have you heard "He is pissing me off but I love his abs and girl, nobody fucks me like he does." and for the guys "Ahh! she a fucking bitch but she sure do give good head." but in the end, you leave the person because your personalities didn't match.

I said it in the other thread and I'll say it again here, if women wanted guys who were sensitive, then they would go for them, but they don't. So what does that say about the women? Which one is more important? Women seem to be telling us guys that they would rather have us be shallow than in tune with them and sensitive. A woman told me this after I found out, two months later, that she had a boyfriend. "He's a really nice guy but he doesn't make me feel like you do. I love him and I know he'll make a good husband but he doesn't excite me like you. I don't want to talk about this anymore." after that, she and I quit talking to each other. Her boyfriend never found out and now they're married.


This is why I put looks and personality on the same level.

this.

[alfaroverall]

snip
This logic puts looks and personality on the same level in a moderate-term relationship, i.e. one that lasts longer than 1 month but shorter than, let's say 2 years (that choice is arbitrary, the 1 month one is less arbitrary). It also puts looks above personality in relationships that last for less than 1 month. I can follow that. But how about a 20 year relationship? Are looks and personality equivalent on that scale? Serious question.
ahhhh, now here's an answer I can get on board with! He is shallow because he can't think for himself. Very well done.

He is not shallow for not being attracted to a chubby girl.
But no one ever said he wasn't attracted to her at all. He already said they had hit it off in the first few days, and I think he also said that he was kinda attracted to her but he would be embarrassed to be with her in public.

Getting away from the specific scenario, however, I would say that one is not shallow for not being attracted to a chubby girl, but that someone who is not shallow would simply not wind up in any romantic contact with that person. They'd acknowledge that there is no attraction there and leave it at that. The shallow (or perhaps more accurately the manipulative) would allow it to go on and see how things go, despite the fact that they know it's never going to actually go anywhere.

Put differently: no, you're not shallow if you're not attracted to a chubby girl. But if you hit it off with her for a few days and then cast her aside because she's chubby, you are shallow. Not being shallow in this context would make you not get into a romantic situation with her in the first place.

[Erroneous]

There's no point in trying to figure out which aspect is more important, the point is that both are valid considerations. Reasonable people can disagree on how they rank the two. And there is nothing inherently more "superficial"/"shallow" about prioritizing looks.

[Justinian]

...now I see why this thread frightens me. You're almost the exact same as my father, and on an intellectual level (not at the level of facts but at the level of perspectives towards facts, opinions, etc.), I am almost the same as he is. My sentiments in this area are perhaps derived from my desire to not be, at an emotional and interpersonal level, the same as he is, which is to say a self-centered asshole who manipulates others constantly (in fact he's paid $80,000 a year almost exclusively to manipulate people as a claims adjustor).

Ha, yeah. I know exactly what you mean. My best advice to you is: don't fight it. Give in to the dark side. Once you stop running from/fighting against who you are, life will be a lot better. It doesn't mean you have to end up like your father completely, but just realize that you'll always be like him emotionally. It's nothing to be ashamed of - in fact, once you embrace it, it's fucking sweet.

"Incarceration of personality is the sad inception of self-denial. The one who denies the inner self flees into deception."
~Muhammed Suicmez, Necrophagist - Ignominious and Pale

One cannot take advantage of oneself. That's a contradiction in terms.

True. A better wording would be: they allow themselves to be taken advantage of. To me, it's essentially the same thing as taking advantage of yourself - rationalizing away what you really want in order to be comfortable. It's self-deception.

The change in oneself cannot continue if it is not reciprocal. That was my point, and IMO it's a big part of why many relationships fail despite holding steady for many years. One party stops changing from the other, while the other party continues to change. 5 years later, BAM!, the former has no idea what the fuck happened to their old love. Again, I can link this to my parents; my mother has been changed by my father, but he has remained the same, and so they have a strong disconnect.

Yep. Same thing happened with my longest relationship. I tried changing myself, thinking that if this girl loved me I could reciprocate and truly begin to feel feelings. Oops. She changed, I didn't. Boo fuckity hoo. I warned her.

Then you didn't have all four things, you just thought you did. Seriously, reciprocal devotion is BY DEFINITION not selfish. It is perhaps impossible for humans, you could make that argument, but to make the argument that reciprocal devotion is selfish is just dumb.

Well, here we'll just have to agree to disagree - for me, it is BY DEFINITION selfish, since it involves human action. All human action is motivated by self-interest and self-interest alone. Whether or not you both decide to give up a part of yourselves for each other is your own business, but it doesn't change the fact that you're both in it for you and you alone.

All of the social sciences are less quantifiable and objective than the natural sciences. That doesn't make them not sciences, and that means that the drive to know that is associated with them is just as strong if not stronger. I would argue that it's probably stronger, because it is so personal: it is a desire to understand oneself, which is perhaps the ultimate goal of everyone.

Mmhmm. I just find it ironic that in order to understand oneself better, one has to use others to do so. Humans are objectified like any other part of a controlled experiment.

"Great personality" is more subjective than "great looks." To me "great personality" (with respect to romantic relationships) is, when all is said and done, the ability for all 4 of the above things to begin and remain constant for a long period of time. In some cases, that person could be an asshole when you first meet them; they don't have to necessarily be nice, good-natured, etc.

I dunno, man. Some guys like seeing fat girls getting fucked in the ass by a frozen piece of shit shaped like a dildo. I don't know how much more subjective it can get.

For me, it comes down to chemistry. The rest is sophistry - unsustainable and unrealistic short of self-deception.

So you're looking for a fuckbuddy, in short. That's really what it comes down to with this. That's not a bad thing, but you're deluding yourself by thinking that there's anything more to it.

You're right. I never said there was anything more to it. I try to make girls understand it, but they never do. I don't come right out and say "listen, I just want to bang you and hang out when I need some companionship". Well, I did once, but it got me a slap in the face. I pulled it out A Beautiful Mind style. The idea, for me, is that it is an exchange. They get something out of me, i.e. company, a warm bed to sleep in, gifts from time to time, and fun; I get their bodies' holes. That's all there is to it. I'm incapable of anything more or less. I took a chance trying to "learn" it once or twice, but it just isn't my style.

With that said, however, I still love movies like Casablanca and Wall-E. I'm a romantic at heart. Weird, right?

Casting aside consensus as a form of evidence altogether is a foolish move. Don't hop on the bandwagon and depend on it, but don't drop it either. It's a powerful tool.

I never trust consensus. It lacks the individualistic flavor of opinion and rational argument and substitutes referential learning and group-think.


You should've stated this as soon as people started spouting dictionary definitions at you, because the entire time they, not you, were right.

k

[alfaroverall]

Ha, yeah. I know exactly what you mean. My best advice to you is: don't fight it. Give in to the dark side. Once you stop running from/fighting against who you are, life will be a lot better. It doesn't mean you have to end up like your father completely, but just realize that you'll always be like him emotionally. It's nothing to be ashamed of - in fact, once you embrace it, it's fucking sweet.

"Incarceration of personality is the sad inception of self-denial. The one who denies the inner self flees into deception."
~Muhammed Suicmez, Necrophagist - Ignominious and Pale
How can one enjoy being that which one inherently hates?

Plus, I've managed, perhaps with the help of my mother, to not turn out that way. And I'm happy for that.



True. A better wording would be: they allow themselves to be taken advantage of. To me, it's essentially the same thing as taking advantage of yourself - rationalizing away what you really want in order to be comfortable. It's self-deception.
That much I can agree with, and that's when you're dealing with people who are on some level idiots. It's sad that there are so many of them.
Well, here we'll just have to agree to disagree - for me, it is BY DEFINITION selfish, since it involves human action. All human action is motivated by self-interest and self-interest alone. Whether or not you both decide to give up a part of yourselves for each other is your own business, but it doesn't change the fact that you're both in it for you and you alone.
Then your argument is that it can't happen. Again, you can't say that reciprocal devotion is selfish. You can say that all human action is selfish, but that would mean that reciprocal devotion can't happen.





For me, it comes down to chemistry. The rest is sophistry - unsustainable and unrealistic short of self-deception.
The notion of "chemistry" in relationships is absurd-in essence, it's a combination of pure sexual attraction and some clever back-and-forth remarks, and it's what keeps a short to moderately short (e.g. <1 year) relationship going. Eventually it just fails.

Unless you mean that it literally comes down to chemistry, i.e. interactions between different forms of matter, in which case you would be correct in nearly every single realm that is conceivable, exceptions arising primarily from the "pure" mathematical disciplines. But thinking in that way doesn't get us anywhere, and so we don't.


You're right. I never said there was anything more to it. I try to make girls understand it, but they never do. I don't come right out and say "listen, I just want to bang you and hang out when I need some companionship". Well, I did once, but it got me a slap in the face. I pulled it out A Beautiful Mind style. The idea, for me, is that it is an exchange. They get something out of me, i.e. company, a warm bed to sleep in, gifts from time to time, and fun; I get their bodies' holes. That's all there is to it. I'm incapable of anything more or less. I took a chance trying to "learn" it once or twice, but it just isn't my style.
Again, it's good to see that you at least acknowledge who you are. I'm frightened as hell of it, but at least you can comprehend it.




I never trust consensus. It lacks the individualistic flavor of opinion and rational argument and substitutes referential learning and group-think.
Again, it's a powerful tool. A little "how to process an idea" for you:
1. Do a large number of people agree that it is true?
2. Does it make sense to you?
3a. If 1 and 2 are both true, it is probably true.
3b. If 1 or 2 but not both are true, reconsider your position briefly and move on to step 4.
3c. If 1 and 2 are both false, it is probably false.
4. Are there any fundamental holes in the logic and/or evidence of the idea?
5a. If so, you can probably rule it false.
5b. If not, you get into a much more complex discussion.

In many cases, even with ideas you disagree with, you can wind up getting to 5b. And 1 helps you get there.

[Crying Hyena]

This logic puts looks and personality on the same level in a moderate-term relationship, i.e. one that lasts longer than 1 month but shorter than, let's say 2 years (that choice is arbitrary, the 1 month one is less arbitrary). It also puts looks above personality in relationships that last for less than 1 month. I can follow that. But how about a 20 year relationship? Are looks and personality equivalent on that scale? Serious question.

But no one ever said he wasn't attracted to her at all. He already said they had hit it off in the first few days, and I think he also said that he was kinda attracted to her but he would be embarrassed to be with her in public.

Getting away from the specific scenario, however, I would say that one is not shallow for not being attracted to a chubby girl, but that someone who is not shallow would simply not wind up in any romantic contact with that person. They'd acknowledge that there is no attraction there and leave it at that. The shallow (or perhaps more accurately the manipulative) would allow it to go on and see how things go, despite the fact that they know it's never going to actually go anywhere.

Put differently: no, you're not shallow if you're not attracted to a chubby girl. But if you hit it off with her for a few days and then cast her aside because she's chubby, you are shallow. Not being shallow in this context would make you not get into a romantic situation with her in the first place.

I'd still put them on the same level in terms of importance. As you get older, looks fade but you can still look good at any age. Who they are carries you past that initial, "I'm going to fuck their brains out" stage and into a longer relationship. What many people fail to realize is this point. They think that they have to make it work because the sex is good or the person looks good. No, that's what brought you together. That is no less important than what keeps you together. If you bond first on personality, you're just a friend. If you bond first on looks, then you're more than a friend. That's why I said looks first, personality second in sequence but they're equal. I have friends who'd make the most awesome girlfriend/wife in the world but I'm not sexually attracted to them. There is no point trying to change that. She'd eventually figure it out when we got naked and I was still limp dick. I've ended it with beautiful women because although I loved the bedroom activities, we just didn't match. No point in trying to force it to work. The trick is to find a woman whom you sexually attracted to and your personalities are compatible. Even in 20+ year relationships, both are still equal but personality has taken the front seat since the two were compatible after the initial one month fuck fest.

[Justinian]

I'd still put them on the same level in terms of importance. As you get older, looks fade but you can still look good at any age. Who they are carries you past that initial, "I'm going to fuck their brains out" stage and into a longer relationship. What many people fail to realize is this point. They think that they have to make it work because the sex is good or the person looks good. No, that's what brought you together. That is no less important than what keeps you together. If you bond first on personality, you're just a friend. If you bond first on looks, then you're more than a friend. That's why I said looks first, personality second in sequence but they're equal. I have friends who'd make the most awesome girlfriend/wife in the world but I'm not sexually attracted to them. There is no point trying to change that. She'd eventually figure it out when we got naked and I was still limp dick. I've ended it with beautiful women because although I loved the bedroom activities, we just didn't match. No point in trying to force it to work. The trick is to find a woman whom you sexually attracted to and your personalities are compatible. Even in 20+ year relationships, both are still equal but personality has taken the front seat since the two were compatible after the initial one month fuck fest.

Right. Sometimes, too, you can be wildly attracted to a girl with her clothes on, but as soon as you pop them off, you find deflated tits and stretch mark scarring. I've said this a few times already, but I really wish to emphasize the fact that it's GROSS and you can't keep fucking a girl whose body reminds you of your grandmother, no matter how awesomely well your personalities match up.

[Steve Renolds]

I only have sex with girls from the central powers, does that make me shallow/nazi?

[SimonVDH]

There's a hell of a lot more to this issue than simple "looks" vs. "personality". "looks" are also dependent on culture and socio-economic status. Personality is also dependent on education, which is dependent on culture and socio-economic status. How a person looks often says a great deal about what they value and the OP is correct, both looks and personality change with time. There are also both physical, and personality traits a person can do nothing about.

The real question is, what are you looking for in a relationship? Are you looking for sex, or are you looking for friendship? Are you looking for someone to become part of your life, or are you just browsing? How are you compartementalizing your life? What are the limits you are placing on your engagement in this relationship? Is this person a friend at work, or at church, or at school, or at a club, with no connection to the rest of your life? How much of your life are you willing to share with this person?

The anatomy of attraction is extremely complex, to reduce it to the dichotomy of "looks" vs. "personality", is to simplify it to the point of meaninglessness.

Quoting this becouse it's true and becouse I probably won't ever post something as clever as this.

[Justinian]

How can one enjoy being that which one inherently hates?

Plus, I've managed, perhaps with the help of my mother, to not turn out that way. And I'm happy for that.

Well, best of luck to you with that, but for the record, it doesn't just go away. Try as you may, it will not change for a long time.

Supposedly it starts to slacken off later in life, but you might as well enjoy it while you have it. It can make your professional life extremely successful, believe you me.

Get money, fuck bitches, smoke trees. Wisdom.

[alfaroverall]

Even in 20+ year relationships, both are still equal but personality has taken the front seat since the two were compatible after the initial one month fuck fest.
But see, then you're saying "given that this relationship is going to last for 20 years, what is most important at the beginning of it?" That logic is flawed, because the knowledge that the relationship would last that long did not exist when the relationship began. As I was saying, they stay the same until the relationship has lasted for a certain amount of time (again my arbitrary-as-hell number was 2 years) and then after that personality begins to take over. I'm trying to see what you think of that reasoning.

I suppose another part of my perspective derives from 2 of my grandparents, who were together for over 60 years. One of them passed away this morning, and the other is pretty much broken emotionally (but in good shape physically, other than the fact that he is probably legally blind now). I should mention that as a part of my perspective.
Right. Sometimes, too, you can be wildly attracted to a girl with her clothes on, but as soon as you pop them off, you find deflated tits and stretch mark scarring. I've said this a few times already, but I really wish to emphasize the fact that it's GROSS and you can't keep fucking a girl whose body reminds you of your grandmother, no matter how awesomely well your personalities match up.
What about when you're both 60 and you've been married for 35 years and are still quite in love? Plenty of guys are in that situation and continue to be able to get it up despite the fact that their wives' appearance has deteriorated tremendously.
Well, best of luck to you with that, but for the record, it doesn't just go away. Try as you may, it will not change for a long time.

Supposedly it starts to slacken off later in life, but you might as well enjoy it while you have it. It can make your professional life extremely successful, believe you me.

Get money, fuck bitches, smoke trees. Wisdom.
If I was going out into the business world, it would be useful; my dad has told me that and I agree with him. (When he talks about his job, I can practically finish his sentences. Despite the fact that he's about the only one in the industry who can do what he does, if I was taught the laws and how the paperwork is written I could do it too.) I'm not planning on that though. About the most cutthroat my career will probably be is making sure I keep my name on all of my documents so that no one can steal my findings when it comes time to publish them.

[Justinian]

But see, then you're saying "given that this relationship is going to last for 20 years, what is most important at the beginning of it?" That logic is flawed, because the knowledge that the relationship would last that long did not exist when the relationship began. As I was saying, they stay the same until the relationship has lasted for a certain amount of time (again my arbitrary-as-hell number was 2 years) and then after that personality begins to take over. I'm trying to see what you think of that reasoning.

Well, my take is that the reasoning here is bad. Again, not to confront you, but as constructive criticism.

I base it solely on personal experience, unfortunately, but that's all I really have to go on. If the sexual chemistry fades, just stop. Save being old for being old. If you like, take a stab at a relationship when the sexual chemistry has faded. It fucking sucks, let me tell you.

For a good movie dealing with this, check out Annie Hall.

[Justinian]

What about when you're both 60 and you've been married for 35 years and are still quite in love? Plenty of guys are in that situation and continue to be able to get it up despite the fact that their wives' appearance has deteriorated tremendously.


Vishnu bless those poor fuckers. I feel sorry for them. It's like castration. I could still get it up for the girl with stretch marks because I'm a fiend, but it wasn't fun.

[alfaroverall]

Well, my take is that the reasoning here is bad. Again, not to confront you, but as constructive criticism.

I base it solely on personal experience, unfortunately, but that's all I really have to go on. If the sexual chemistry fades, just stop. Save being old for being old. If you like, take a stab at a relationship when the sexual chemistry has faded. It fucking sucks, let me tell you.

For a good movie dealing with this, check out Annie Hall.
See my edit.
Vishnu bless those poor fuckers. I feel sorry for them. It's like castration. I could still get it up for the girl with stretch marks because I'm a fiend, but it wasn't fun.
How could you feel sorry for people with that kind of devotion? I'm of course assuming that they're not sticking together purely because of financial concerns and/or the concerns of their children and that they are having sex with one another because they don't have anywhere else to fulfill said needs.

Now, who I would feel sorry for is a guy whose wife divorces him at like 65. That would fucking suck. That's worse than her dying, imo, since when she dies you could basically reconcile with it and concede that your romantic career has ended not because of your failures but because of nature. Getting divorced at 65 though would mean that in order to reconcile that failure with yourself you would need to go through the agony of trying to get it up for women your age to whom you don't have the devotion that you had with your wife.

Also, isn't there some other aspect of Brahma that is the sex side of things in Hinduism? I thought Vishnu was the Preserver of the Universe or what have you.

[Crying Hyena]

But see, then you're saying "given that this relationship is going to last for 20 years, what is most important at the beginning of it?" That logic is flawed, because the knowledge that the relationship would last that long did not exist when the relationship began. As I was saying, they stay the same until the relationship has lasted for a certain amount of time (again my arbitrary-as-hell number was 2 years) and then after that personality begins to take over. I'm trying to see what you think of that reasoning.

I suppose another part of my perspective derives from 2 of my grandparents, who were together for over 60 years. One of them passed away this morning, and the other is pretty much broken emotionally (but in good shape physically, other than the fact that he is probably legally blind now). I should mention that as a part of my perspective.

Very, very few people enter into relationships saying that I'm going to marry this person. The initial physical attraction pulls people together then it is the glue for the first art of the relationship, if it's more than just a fuck buddy, but eventually you do have to deal with the personality as it becomes the the foundation for the glue that keeps you together. Look at the divorce rate in the U.S. which, in my opinion, has to do with the work hours each person has to put in. The husband and wife are spending more time with different people than they are with each other. They've passed that initial attraction phase but now in the personality phase, they spend it with other people and they then become different people. A major part of who you are can be described by summing your 5 closest friends or the 5 people you spend the most time with. If your significant other is not in your 5 then you will get a divorce.

Both my grandparents, one pair is still together and the my grandmother on the other side died several years ago, stayed together 55+ years. I would love to find that. I do believe that is harder in today's society for many reasons one of which I just stated. Even still, I put those two on the same level for the reason that one attracts and the other keeps. You never start a relationship saying "I'm going to be with this person for the rest of my life." it just doesn't work like that. You find out as you go along.

[Crying Hyena]

Now, who I would feel sorry for is a guy whose wife divorces him at like 65. That would fucking suck. That's worse than her dying, imo, since when she dies you could basically reconcile with it and concede that your romantic career has ended not because of your failures but because of nature. Getting divorced at 65 though would mean that in order to reconcile that failure with yourself you would need to go through the agony of trying to get it up for women your age to whom you don't have the devotion that you had with your wife.

Also, isn't there some other aspect of Brahma that is the sex side of things in Hinduism? I thought Vishnu was the Preserver of the Universe or what have you.

People get complacent and figure, well I have them, I can let myself go. Nope. Keep doing it till you die.

[Erroneous]

http://women.timesonline.co.uk/tol/life_and_style/women/relationships/article5439805.ece

Relevant recent study showing that "passionate love" visual cues can create the same brain activity as young lovers decades into a relationship. Speaks to the importance of "chemistry" or visual appreciation lasting longer into a relationship in some instances.

[Justinian]

Very, very few people enter into relationships saying that I'm going to marry this person. The initial physical attraction pulls people together then it is the glue for the first art of the relationship, if it's more than just a fuck buddy, but eventually you do have to deal with the personality as it becomes the the foundation for the glue that keeps you together. Look at the divorce rate in the U.S. which, in my opinion, has to do with the work hours each person has to put in. The husband and wife are spending more time with different people than they are with each other. They've passed that initial attraction phase but now in the personality phase, they spend it with other people and they then become different people. A major part of who you are can be described by summing your 5 closest friends or the 5 people you spend the most time with. If your significant other is not in your 5 then you will get a divorce.

Both my grandparents, one pair is still together and the my grandmother on the other side died several years ago, stayed together 55+ years. I would love to find that. I do believe that is harder in today's society for many reasons one of which I just stated. Even still, I put those two on the same level for the reason that one attracts and the other keeps. You never start a relationship saying "I'm going to be with this person for the rest of my life." it just doesn't work like that. You find out as you go along.

Yep. I'd like to find that too, but I'm also realistic about it. I enter into every relationship with no expectations whatsoever - physically, emotionally, whatever else. Girls make the mistake of going entirely too far, entirely too fast. Men eventually feel shackled by it, or at the very least guilty (I am guilty of this myself), and stick with it, thinking they can change. The girl becomes more like a puppy or some shit at that point.

I agree with the premise, too, that life is entirely too hectic for love nowadays. Too many people, too many stimuli, too much in general. I look at love the way I look at Ancient Rome.

[alfaroverall]

Very, very few people enter into relationships saying that I'm going to marry this person. The initial physical attraction pulls people together then it is the glue for the first art of the relationship, if it's more than just a fuck buddy, but eventually you do have to deal with the personality as it becomes the the foundation for the glue that keeps you together. Look at the divorce rate in the U.S. which, in my opinion, has to do with the work hours each person has to put in. The husband and wife are spending more time with different people than they are with each other. They've passed that initial attraction phase but now in the personality phase, they spend it with other people and they then become different people. A major part of who you are can be described by summing your 5 closest friends or the 5 people you spend the most time with. If your significant other is not in your 5 then you will get a divorce.

Both my grandparents, one pair is still together and the my grandmother on the other side died several years ago, stayed together 55+ years. I would love to find that. I do believe that is harder in today's society for many reasons one of which I just stated. Even still, I put those two on the same level for the reason that one attracts and the other keeps. You never start a relationship saying "I'm going to be with this person for the rest of my life." it just doesn't work like that. You find out as you go along.
I see what you mean here. I guess I'm just saying that it takes less to attract than it takes to keep. That is, a greater percentage of the population could attract you than could keep you. (Hell, many guys spend many years before they find a woman they can really hit it off with but they see 10+ hot chicks everyday.) A still smaller percentage could do both. That fact, to me, puts personality above looks on its own. From the perspective of the individual relationship, I see what you mean, but on aggregate terms, it seems like personality should be made higher.
Yep. I'd like to find that too, but I'm also realistic about it. I enter into every relationship with no expectations whatsoever - physically, emotionally, whatever else. Girls make the mistake of going entirely too far, entirely too fast. Men eventually feel shackled by it, or at the very least guilty (I am guilty of this myself), and stick with it, thinking they can change. The girl becomes more like a puppy or some shit at that point.

I agree with the premise, too, that life is entirely too hectic for love nowadays. Too many people, too many stimuli, too much in general. I look at love the way I look at Ancient Rome.
Now these I can agree with, mostly...I don't think love is impossible now, but I do think it's quite difficult.

[Slypieguy]

The "it's ok to date a chubby girl" crowd always seems to miss one important point: there are like infinite girls out there, so there is no reason not to go for a chick that has looks and personality.

[Justinian]

The "it's ok to date a chubby girl" crowd always seems to miss one important point: there are like infinite girls out there, so there is no reason not to go for a chick that has looks and personality.

Fucking goddamn right. That's something that irks me about that crowd, too. Buncha pussies willing to settle for 6s and 7s when they could be banging 9s and 10s

[Slypieguy]

Fucking goddamn right. That's something that irks me about that crowd, too. Buncha pussies willing to settle for 6s and 7s when they could be banging 9s and 10s

The exact same problem is rampant among girls and some guys post-breakup. OMGOMG he's the only one for me!! No idiot, there are like 3.5 billion guys out there and if you think he's the best one, you need to pull your head out of Walt Disney's ass and return to reality.

[alfaroverall]

The "it's ok to date a chubby girl" crowd always seems to miss one important point: there are like infinite girls out there, so there is no reason not to go for a chick that has looks and personality.
Maybe if you can get it or even find it. It's hard enough just finding the personality, and hell it's even fairly hard to find girls with looks that will go for you (though it is easy to find girls with looks).
Fucking goddamn right. That's something that irks me about that crowd, too. Buncha pussies willing to settle for 6s and 7s when they could be banging 9s and 10s
Then there's those of us that probably couldn't wind up with 9s and 10s no matter how wealthy and socially apt we are...god damn skin...
The exact same problem is rampant among girls and some guys post-breakup. OMGOMG he's the only one for me!! No idiot, there are like 3.5 billion guys out there and if you think he's the best one, you need to pull your head out of Walt Disney's ass and return to reality.
Now this is true.

Reminds me, WALT DISNEY OWES ME MONEY. Bastard.

(Seriously, my grandfather gave him a few thousand dollars in startup capital back in the day with an oral contract, and they are now both dead with no re-payment).

[Barbot]

...so wait a minute. You're putting "liking someone for how they look" and "liking someone by how they act" on the same level? Really? You're trying to say that caring only about someone's appearance, which they can only partially control and which has fairly little to do with who they are as a person, is just as "bad" as caring about how someone acts, which is the very cornerstone of their identity? Really?

Now, if you're truly uptight about someone's personality, such as "I won't date a girl who does <insert action here>" and said action isn't something like cheating on you or stealing from you, that's different. It's still less superficial than functioning solely on the level of looks, since you're at least exercising discretion with respect to the actual person instead of just a wad of flesh, but it's still superficial. But to care about the general way a person acts, how they actually make you feel, etc. is infinitely less superficial than to care about how someone looks.

But I suppose a community like this struggles to think in that sense; the notion of a relationship with more complexity than a fuckbuddy doesn't seem to apply to most of you guys.

I'm sorry you feel this way, you must be ugly.

[Amaryl]

You can't disregard looks, doesn't matter if you think that personality is more important or not, appearance still matters.

mannerisms, hygiene and yes body all matter.

even if she got the best personality in the world for you, and she's fat, while you're in to skinny, has her finger in her nose every 10 minutes and has a bad fucking breath, no way you're going to stick with that for the next 50 years.

you might find it superficial, but you're still basing your judgement on it. you don't chat up every fucking girl to see if she has a good personality.

I know I wouldn't want to spend 40 years looking at some girl that I find hideous and disgusting, no matter how great her personality is.

if you really think you won't, you're deluding yourselves and you're a fucking hypocrite.

[alfaroverall]

I'm sorry you feel this way, you must be ugly.
I'd say that I am, actually, but that has nothing to do with that sentiment. It has to do with my success in applying that sentiment, but it has nothing to do with the fact that I hold it.

[Slypieguy]

...so wait a minute. You're putting "liking someone for how they look" and "liking someone by how they act" on the same level? Really? You're trying to say that caring only about someone's appearance, which they can only partially control and which has fairly little to do with who they are as a person, is just as "bad" as caring about how someone acts, which is the very cornerstone of their identity? Really?


He didn't say it was fair :)

[Justinian]

I'd say that I am, actually, but that has nothing to do with that sentiment. It has to do with my success in applying that sentiment, but it has nothing to do with the fact that I hold it.

Even ugly dudes can get 8+s. It's about getting past your hangups and growing some testicles. It's hard, but once you try and get shot down a few times, it becomes way, way easier.

Unless you're freakishly ugly. Then you gotta settle.

edit: the main thing to remember is that girls are just as hung up, if not four hundred thousand times moreso, than you are. all they want is a confident, cool guy to talk to. All you want is to bang them. Fair trade.

[alfaroverall]

Even ugly dudes can get 8+s. It's about getting past your hangups and growing some testicles. It's hard, but once you try and get shot down a few times, it becomes way, way easier.

Unless you're freakishly ugly. Then you gotta settle.

edit: the main thing to remember is that girls are just as hung up, if not four hundred thousand times moreso, than you are. all they want is a confident, cool guy to talk to. All you want is to bang them. Fair trade.
I'd take a picture and post it for you if I wasn't too lazy to put my card reader back into my other comp (I took it out to try to put it in my new comp but because of a stupid little tab that HP put on I would've made it impossible to put into my other comp if I put it into my current comp).

It's pretty bad though. Then there's the social impairment. =/

Edit: forgot, I have some old pictures still on photobucket (this one is like 2 years old):
http://i141.photobucket.com/albums/r57/blindbravado/100_0268-1.jpg
I'm in the middle, the kids around are a couple of my cousins who were, as you can see, driving me completely batshit insane at the time. I probably look worse now than I did then...

[akrippler]

Yeah right dude alfar is a banger. (thats a good thing)

[Megumi]

You're all so full of shit.

You'll take whatever you can get.

Stop pretending to have social skills/lives.

[alfaroverall]

You're all so full of shit.

You'll take whatever you can get.

Stop pretending to have social skills/lives.
Even though I get pretty much nothing, I still wouldn't take whatever I could get. Beggars can't be choosers, but those that get nothing of something they don't necessarily need CAN be choosers.

[Justinian]

You're all so full of shit.

You'll take whatever you can get.

Stop pretending to have social skills/lives.

Hey, given sufficient quantities of booze, I'll fuck pretty much anything with a pulse. So, I'll take whatever I can get should the opportunity arise.

I prefer to have a girl I can get along with, though, because it makes the preambles to the pants off dance off that much more fun. That requires the girl to be into it, though. Some girls just aren't.

[Spinewire]

It would take a very skilled psychoanalyst to answer the question "why?" with respect to things like these.

Put differently, I couldn't tell you. But the fact that so many people seem to think differently scares me a bit.
I am in agreement with you 100%


I would like to add that for me that after the random fucks in my youth and the usual fallout that goes with it decided the next girl i dated/fucked would be for keeps. As i just CBA with random idiot women, my current girlfriend i got to know for 6 months before i asked her out, she was always amazed that i took so long, also once that i was going out with her we did not "get down to business" for a good few months partly due to her catholic upbringing and my unusualy unpushy nature in this department as i just wanted to be sure she was a keeper.

[Justinian]

I am in agreement with you 100%


I would like to add that for me that after the random fucks in my youth and the usual fallout that goes with it decided the next girl i dated/fucked would be for keeps. As i just CBA with random idiot women, my current girlfriend i got to know for 6 months before i asked her out, she was always amazed that i took so long, also once that i was going out with her we did not "get down to business" for a good few months partly due to her catholic upbringing and my unusualy unpushy nature in this department as i just wanted to be sure she was a keeper.

Neat. Yeah, some girls try to move it really fast. One of mine was surprised that I didn't give her a kiss on the first date, and by the second date she was tossing around handjobs like they were hotcakes. We were bangin within the first week. I didn't care, I thought it was just fun. She, however, took it way too seriously. Fucked my day up, lemme tell you.

[The Cougar]

I dont want to come across of the totally superficial side of the spectrum, I'm not, but you have to have an attraction to someone.

A total knockout that is also and asshole becomes less attractive.

Someone you are not initially attracted to can become far more attractive after you know them more deeply (heh..).

Its ike a points scale.

Total 10 on looks
-6 for being an asshole
Becomes a(l)4 overall.

Someone who cant keep themself up doesnt have respect for themself, barring the cases where it is a genetic thing. There are a lot of people that just let themselves go and are a mess. That doesnt mean everyone needs to be hard bodies but for the love of yourself, you can keep as fit as possible for your body typse, and not just be a mess.

Booah ah hah hah hah hah!

[alfaroverall]

Booah ah hah hah hah hah!
...:confused:

[Justinian]

Spinewire: What the hell is CBA, btw?

[alfaroverall]

Spinewire: What the hell is CBA, btw?
http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=CBA
I had to look it up too.

[The Cougar]

...:confused:
Bolded text, al4overall. :(

[Nevron]

This is now a chubby thread.

[alfaroverall]

Bolded text, al4overall. :(
Oh jeez that's brilliant. Random as hell, and kinda mean (:() but brilliant.