What To Look For In A Woman

Guys are surprisingly bad at knowing what we want.

"I call bullshit!"

“Nope, feeling pretty sure about this one.”

No, seriously. Ever been hanging out with a buddy who insists that every woman he’s ever dated is “a complete psycho bitch“? Or the friend who seems to attract constant drama llamas who are continually having some sort of crisis in their lives? How about the guys who keep getting dumped over and over again or the ones who fall in love at the drop of a hat with women who will only break their hearts?

Maybe you know (or are) a guy who’s sole criteria is that she has to be a “10” or that she’s got to represent some hard to get “type” that’s always been out of your reach  – the cheerleader who spurned you in high school, the hot party girl you never could get with, a big-name cosplayer with the awesome League of Legends costume at NYCC. Maybe she needs to be the Manic Pixie Dream Girl to bring excitement and adventure to your life.

There comes a point when you have to be willing to admit that the only common denominator in all of these failed relationships or attempts at relationships is, well, you. If you keep going after women you think you want but are fundamentally incompatible with, then you’re just begging for heartbreak.

All too often there’s a serious disconnect between what we think we want and the people we’re actually compatible with. Sure, it’s easy to say “yes, Scarlett Johannsen and I would be perfect for each other” when you’re looking at her on the cover of Esquire, but unless you’re already somehow in the industry, your lifestyle and values are going to be night-and-day different.

...whereas I KNOW Kat Dennings and I could make it work. If that stupid restraining order wasn't in the way, anyway.

…whereas I KNOW Kat Dennings and I could make it work. If that stupid restraining order wasn’t in the way, anyway.

When it comes to finding an awesome woman, you have to know what you should be looking for.

Is Her Lifestyle Compatible With Yours?

One of the first questions people ask when they go on a date with somebody is “what will my life be like if this person were my girlfriend/boyfriend?” Your lifestyle plays a key role in your dating life and if yours don’t sync up, then the odds of the two of you working out go down exponentially.

Let’s say that you work a standard 9 to 5 job; you know exactly how your weeks will go – you clock in, you put in your eight or nine hours, you clock out on Friday and are ready for the weekend to commence. You may be tired at the end of the day, but at least when you’re done with work, you are done. You don’t need to spend time answering emails or putting out metaphorical fires at 11 PM; your time off is your time off.

Meanwhile, you’ve got a crush on the hot bartender you’ve seen at Starbucks, and she’s into you too… but the two of you almost never manage to actually schedule a dateHer day doesn’t start until around the time you get off work and don’t end until 4 in the morning.While your weekends are your time off, they’re crunch-time for her, leaving her exhausted the next day. And that lawyer you’ve been flirting with at your friend’s party? She’s been working 60-80 hour weeks ever since her firm took on that big client; there are days when it seems like she only goes home to shower and change clothes if she’s lucky. It’s hard for her to make plans because her time is so rarely her own – there will be plenty of times when she needs to work late, when she’s going to have to go over files at home and cancel even long-established plans in the name of getting the job done.

"Well, so much for seeing The Book of Mormon this weekend..."

“Well, so much for seeing The Book of Mormon this weekend…”

This, incidentally, is why it’s often difficult for single parents to date; weekends are almost always taken, staying over is difficult and plans are regularly interrupted by child-related emergencies.

But compatible lifestyles are about more than just scheduling issues, it’s about what you do with your life in general. We date who we are, and if you’re trying to date someone who’s radically different from you, then you’re going to run into trouble and heartbreak very quickly. If you’re more of a homebody who likes to get together with a few close friends for some rounds of Carcassonne, you’re going to be very frustrated trying to date somebody who wants to go out clubbing and bar-hopping. If you’re the outdoorsy type who likes to go mountain biking and taking long hikes out in the woods, it’s going to be more difficult to make things work with a devoted city-mouse whose definition of “roughing it” consists of a hotel with slow wi-fi. This is one of the reasons why the cheerleaders tend to date the jocks instead of the nerds – they have more in common and share a more compatible lifestyle.

This isn’t to say that differing lifestyles can’t work – much like introverts and extroverts there will always be people who can find ways to accommodate their different needs without alienating or trying each other’s patience… but it’s going to be much harder.

And while we’re on the subject:

Do Her Values Align With Yours?

This is another area that’s tricky to navigate. It’s easy to find somebody who’s your perfect match except for one area… and that one area could be the thing that brings it all crashing to the ground. More often than not, this is a matter of values – what you believe in, what you hold sacred and what you believe to be important.

The ur-example is, of course, religion. Many people have a hard time reconciling how they feel about somebody with the fact that they come from a different religious faith, whether it’s Catholics dating Protestants, Christians dating atheists or Jews dating Muslims. In fact, many branches of the Abrahamic religions specifically ban dating outside of your faith. Even if the two of you are able to navigate your own personal feelings about religion, it could come up again if and when you have children – how will they be raised? Even if you plan to give them the choice, it can become a contentious issue, when even the extended family gets involved.

But values go beyond your sense of morality or belief (or lack thereof) in God – it also includes what you prioritize in your life. Are you highly ambitious, chasing after a specific goal at work, or is your personal time more important? Do you believe more in the individual or in the community? Do you prefer to have structure and order in your life? Then the last thing you’re going to want to do is date a self-described “free spirit”. Are you the sort of person who treats his body like a temple? Then you’re going to have a hard time relating – or even tolerating – somebody who tends to treat theirs like an amusement park.

So, crammed full of dubious chemicals, covered in puke and graffiti and operated by carnies?

So, crammed full of dubious chemicals, covered in puke and graffiti and operated by carnies?

 

The thing to keep in mind is that you may think you want someone whose values are different than yours – someone whom you think counterbalances your own inhibitions or a lack in your life. The problem with this, though, is that you’re hoping for somebody else to make you a better – or more complete – person and those sorts of relationships only exist in the movies. Not only is it unfair to put the responsibility of “fixing you” on the shoulders of somebody else, but it tells other people that you’re simply not willing to put in the work on your own life. People are looking for a partner, not a project, and the only people who look for somebody to save are the people you shouldn’t be dating in the first place.

How Does She Handle Conflict?

You’re going to fight. It’s an inevitability. It may not be a screaming match or a heated argument, but you and your future partner will come into conflict. How often and over what will vary and you will wonder if you’re fighting too much or over stupid things and what does this mean for your relationship. But that’s not the metric you want to judge things by.

What you want to know is: how does she fight? Is she the sort of person who just explodes at the drop of a hat, or is she able to process what’s important? When the two of you are butting heads, whether it’s over the household finances or just whether you’re watching Vampire Diaries or Sons of Anarchy that night, are you able to actually have a discussion, or is it going to turn into a mutual snipe-fest as you aim to score points off of each other instead of resolving the matter at hand? Does she store old grievances like a passive-aggressive squirrel hoarding nuts for the winter or does she let go of the matter when it’s been resolved?

"...and this one is for when he forgot my birthday. And this one is when I caught him checking out my sister's boobs..."

“This one is for when he forgot my birthday. And this one is when I caught him checking out my sister’s boobs…”

You want somebody whose approach to conflict is to be sensible. You can’t expect Vulcan-like clarity or logic from anyone in the heat of an argument, but you want somebody who’s willing to hear you out, who’s willing to consider that she might be wrong and doesn’t immediately deflect or dismiss any legitimate grievance instead of throwing a huge fit, blaming you or trying to make everything your fault. Even if there’s an emotional burst at the beginning, if she’s willing to calm down and discuss things rationally, then everything has a much better chance of working out. A person who is willing to work with you instead of just pitching a fit is someone who’s looking to be a partner in a relationship instead of a superior.

Oh, and don’t think that this gets you off the hook; you have to be just as willing to calm down, listen to her side and be willing to accept responsibility and admit your own fault. It takes two to tango, and demanding only one person make concessions isn’t a relationship.

Fighting isn’t necessarily a bad thing – people can have disagreements, even passionate ones, over just about anything as long as there’s an underlying level of respect at the core of the relationship. But if she’s the sort of person who treats a fight as an opportunity to remind you of all of your short-comings, who can’t admit to her own faults or take responsibility for her own actions… well, then you want to find somebody else.

Immediately.

Is She Addicted To Drama?

There are some people who seem to always be in the middle of a crisis of epic proportions. Things are always going wrong for them. Friends betray them, bosses insult and belittle them, the universe has it out for them personally. Somehow things just always seem to explode around them and it’s never their own fault. Ever.

And they wouldn’t have it any other way. They’ll be the first to tell you “Oh, I’m a drama-free zone. I can’t stand drama,” and yet they’re always standing at ground-zero for the latest explosion or tantrum because it makes them feel important. It feeds into their need to be the center of attention without actually having to accept responsibility for their actions. When you’re in a perpetual state of crisis, then you’re the central figure of everybody’s lives.

Somehow the cause of more explosions than a chain-smoker in a fireworks factory...

Somehow the cause of more explosions than a chain-smoker in a fireworks factory…

As annoying as the drama queen might be, she presents a unique temptation to many men because she’s somebody to rescue. When you have low self-esteem, being able to ride in like the hero to calm the storm and save the day is incredibly appealing. It makes you feel needed. It makes you feel important. And when you feel as though you’re insignificant and worthless, this can be an intoxicating sensation. But there is literally no end to the crisises she will need you to intervene in because she will always go out of her way to make things worse… after all, she gets off on the drama and attention just as much as you get off on feeling like the savior.

Drama magnets are prime breeding ground for toxic relationships. They’ll undermine everything you’ve built  up in order to fuel another dilemma. They’ll continually drag you into their problems because they need an audience. And when you’ve become pliant to her whims and her games then she’ll leave you, because the ultimate drama fuel is to throw another man into the mix.

How Does She Make You Feel?

The most important question though, is simply, “how does she make you feel?”

"Well gee, how do you think, Doc?"

“Well gee, how do you think, Doc?”

It’s easy to get caught up in her looks – the thrill of a beautiful woman being into you is amazing, but those feelings tend to be deceiving. That initial rush of attraction goes away faster than you’d expect and then you’re left dealing with the real person, not just the collection of appealing features. I’ve dated literal models where I  realized that once you get past the looks… there’s really nothing else there. Sure, it’s nice going out with somebody who makes people stop and stare and wonder where to find the crossroads where you made your deal with Satan, but when she leaves you feeling cold or – worse – frustrated and bored, then you’re going to be miserable.

And how you feel when you’re with her is ultimately going to mean far more than what’s on the surface. A 101 who makes you miserable is ultimately less desirable than a  7 who makes you feel like the world is an amazing place and you can’t wait to see her again because she makes you laugh and you always have an incredible time with her.

So you want to ask yourself: Does she make you happy? Not in the sense of accomplishment – “look what I managed to land” – or in terms of external validation – “I’m nailing a hot chick, aren’t I awesome?” but in the sense of “I enjoy my life more when she’s around”. Does she make you feel like you can conquer the world? Does she make you feel like you could achieve your dreams? Does she make you feel at ease and content?

If she does, then congratulations: you’ve found somebody incredible.

It Takes Time

The thing to keep in mind is that you’re not going to know all of this right off the bat. It takes time to get to know a person – and that’s part of the fun. But as you’re looking for a future partner, keep these standards in mind. The more you’re aware of what you should be looking for in a woman, the more likely you are to find the relationship of your dreams. Because these are the traits of an amazing woman, and help lead to long-term dating success.

shutterstock_130409018

  1. Disclaimer: I really hate rating women, but it’s a useful shorthand with which to make my point []

Comments

  1. Love this. Very on point Doc.

  2. I'm absolutely reading this as a checklist of how I should treat my boyfriend – and how I hope he would treat me.

  3. This makes sense but how precisely does a person need to know what they want in a partner. I have some vague ideas of qualities that I’m looking for and things that I don’t want. At the same time getting too precise could eliminate too many people.

    • A short list of "must haves" and "would like to haves" should do the trick. Granted, one factor might rule out 99.9999999% of people, but that would just mean fewer dates but with people you have a higher probability of having a good relationship with.

      For example, I require someone who is going to be OK with frequent broken/changed plans because my family has many crises that I need to help out with. This is nonnegotiable for me and screens out the vast majority of men. That is fine because dating someone who wasn't OK with it would be bad for both of us. I ended up dating very little, but eventually met a man who is OK with it and was happy to meet someone who was OK with his own unpredictable schedule (ER nurse)

    • So eliminate them. Is it not better to run all applicants through a wringer and be left with the perfect one or are you truly willing to settle? I ran sixteen dating sites worth of men through my wringer and the man I’m with today I would never trade for the world.

      Hold folks to standards, but hold yourself to them most firmly of all.

      • The thing is that I'm not sure that there is any perfect one. My requirements are probably fairly generic; affectionate, that spending time together isn't a major logistical operation, can hold intelligent conversation, takes somewhat good care of their health, and has somewhat similar tastes in terms of culture and leisure, and somewhat similar opinions on certain subjects. I don't think that I'm asking for all that much. I've seen much more demanding lists of requirements.

        Yet getting a girlfriend seems to be practically impossible at this point. There are plenty of people that manage to get boyfriends and girlfriends and seemingly blunder into it. People I grew up with are already married and have children and I feel basically behind and unable to catch up. I feel that I'm loosing out on a lot and that are tons of things I want to experience but never will be able to.

        • And there always seems to be something that interferes with even looking. There always seems to be some responsibility that has to be done and can't be ignored or put off till later. The entire world seems to work against you while for other people it works for them. Than you develop all these issues that can't help but are hard to get rid off.

        • OK then, let's break this gown a bit. You want someone with a predictable schedule, so that rules out many people in certain professions (e.g. some doctors, lawyers, nurses, finance types, theater/arts/film people). I am going to hazard a guess that you prefer people who are free on weekends/nights and aren't at the beck and call of clients so that rules out some others (e.g. real estate, most gallery folks, fashion). You'd probably prefer someone who didn't travel too much or too long for work, even if the travel was predictable. And I am guessing you'd prefer a professional to someone who works low end hourly.

          Now for her lifestyle. You definitely don't want someone with a whacked out extended family or someone who drops everything because her cousin from [insert place name] is in town. This will rule out a lot of recent and first generation immigrants because those ties often bind close still and families still visit without calling first in some cultures. I am guessing you also don't want someone with a crazy amount of volunteer work, hobbies, clubs, etc. that tie her up in her off hours. You definitely don't want a hardcore athlete like a serious marathoner or triathlete.

          Now for caring about her health. This is actually pretty vague. Do you mean seriously into organic food? Big into nutrition? Works out? Paleo or vegan or some restrictive diet? Does she have to actually be healthy or just look it (e.g. me. I look healthy and athletic but have prediabetes and HBP so have a restricted diet)

          Etc.

          I think the Doc meant to go through and actually think about what you want in a partner and the type of things that you need to ask about/think about. You get enough first dates that you don't need to worry too much if you get more selective and you might benefit from going on fewer, better dates (e.g. more that go 4 hours rather than 2) to find someone who will want a second date.

        • Part of it is that finding someone compatible is just really damn hard. They can match up on all the numbers and still just not have any chemistry. I found that this happens with about 90% of people, and the remaining 10%, you might have to compromise on some of those major things.

    • What are your core values and lifestyle requirements? Those provide your "must-haves." For example, my must-have list includes faithful, kind, relatively sane (through medication is fine), gets along with teens, loves animals, gamer. This is from a history of being married to a philandering sociopath, having three kids at home, utilizing a service dog, and being an avid table-top gamer myself. It always depresses me how hard it is to find a match for such a simple list!

    • Sometimes it helps to think about the flip sides of qualities. Ambitious, spontaneous, attractive, and social are all stereotypically desirable qualities. However, someone ambitious might have little free time, someone spontaneous might expect you to set aside things in your schedule to go on adventures, someone attractive will probably receive attention from others, and someone social might insist on going out when you're tired and want to relax. I think that qualities where you can look at the associated negatives and think, "Well, that's not so bad…" are more likely to be the ones you're truly seeking.

      A lot of people also look to past relationships for clues. For people who don't have past romantic relationships, I think that sometimes thinking about roommates and close friends who you spend a lot of time around can be helpful. Obviously those relationships differ from romance, but some of the same pet peeves might be there.

      • My roommate experiences in college were really horrible. They were so bad that the only people acceptable as roommates are my brothers or somebody I’m in long term relationship with .

        • Well, then those experiences have taught you some things about who isn't compatible with you. You might want to look next to your friends – especially at very close or intense friendships where you two have spent a lot of time together – or at people who you've found you can travel well with.

          I'm going to say that looking to family members as models of what traits might be suitable for you in a romantic partner is tougher. Occasionally there's a good what not to do there, but family dynamics can be specific enough that you might not be able to replicate them with others.

          • Yes, they taught me not to date anybody who is a drunk, puts disinfectant on everything, and has sex with somebody else while your in the room during finals none the less.

          • Ugh. Sorry you had shitty roommates. I had a really interesting one my freshman year as well.

            But that's kind of sidetracked from what I'm talking about. The general point is to think about people in your real life who you can mostly get along with, even when you're in close contact with each other for long periods of time. For me, at least, that helps me move past ideals about what's romantic and desirable and makes it a little easier to focus on finding people who meet my emotional needs and whose emotional needs I'm capable of meeting.

          • One framing device is "Who could I drive cross country with under a deadline?" to figure out what qualities I want in friends/partners.Nothing quite like 3 days in a carcar to figure out if you have personalities that mesh we'll.

            I am guessing any sort of travel would work for this.

    • This is more of a "know thyself' question than a "know what you're looking for" question. What are the things about your life that are most important to you?

    • One thing to remember is that a date doesn’t mean anything other than a date. It’s a test drive, not a commitment.

      As such, it’s occasionally worth lowering your standards just to test what really works/doesn’t work for you. You’re basically trading an evening for a data point. (This is especially applicable for you, Lee, since you’re looking for an ideal with only a small number of unhealthy data points to guide your search.)

      • A date might only be a date to you but for some of us its much more important. The more time spent collecting data point the less likely you are to get what you want because what you want disappears or is looking for something more serious than what your ready for.

  4. Diana Prince says:

    Thank you for making sanity sound sexy!

    • I find having your life together completely sexy. A lot of people like to imagine themselves as some sort of savior for their paramour but that’s never really any fun. The chances of failure are great and the task is emotionally and often physically draining. Providing affection and comfort in times of distress is one thing; having to act as a therapist is another.

  5. This is so true. EVERYONE PLEASE LISTEN TO DR NERDLOVE. The values part is exactly why my marriage is hovering close to the shitter right now. We ARE that first example. My nerd is ambitious, works hard, believes in the individual and must have structure. I am a free spirit. At the beginning of our relationship this was sexy; we complimented each other. I still love his work ethic and grounded nature. But then real life happened and somewhere along the way I became his project. I am not responsible enough for him now that I stay home with our children (which was my clear goal from the beginning). He is having trouble changing me and where there used to be attraction there is now resentment. And in return I resent him for not loving me the way I am. The way he used to. It's pretty awful. We're trying to make it work, but it is really hard. Save yourselves the trouble and avoid it from the get-go.

    • That’s unfortunate. It’s wrong to treat a person as a project like Pygmilion sculpting Galatea. You don’t have to adore everything about your partner but you should basically like them as they are.

  6. NotQuiteBrummie says:

    I'm slightly worried about the fact you skipped "Does she have a pulse?"

  7. I find constantly making light of physical attractiveness unhelpful, a romantic relationship implies a sexual or at least physical relationship, which means there needs to be physical attraction. It might not be the most important thing but it's up there, personality alone doesn't a romantic (this is the key word here) relationship make.

    • Physical attractiveness changes, just as what you are physically attracted to will change. Core personality changes at a much slower rate most of the time.

      I'm not the 110 lb stripper I was in college any more. I'm still the same loving, affectionate, caring, intellectual woman as I was when earning those three degrees with that money.

    • Physical attraction is very important. However, it is something that most people can identify for themselves and don't need to put a lot of thought into. I'd also say that because this site directs its advice toward men and men already receive a ton of social messages about attractiveness being an important trait in a partner, there's probably more ground to cover when it comes to talking about all those other traits that can make a relationship work or flounder.

      • Yep, this. I don't think anyone *really* needs advice to date someone they find attractive, particularly not nerdy men. It's a big enough cultural message without this one article.

    • What's important for a successful sexual relationship in the long term is very different from what's important in the short term. If you're looking for a one night stand, you don't need to worry about the arc of attraction or long-term sexual compatibility, but you also never get the chance to build attraction, to amplify the things your partner thinks are hot about you, or to create shared habits and preferences.

      Also, a lot of guys get the message that they should be looking for a very specific look rather than being in touch with what they actually prefer – and I think nerds who need social validation are especially prone to thinking about how their partner looks to others instead of what actually brings them pleasure. That's why it's good for DNL to work against that message and to get to a saner place.

      Basically: in long-term relationships, worry less about how your partner looks to others right now and more about what you are actually attracted to in a sustainable way.

    • Attractiveness, usually a combination of appearance and manner, is sort of a letter of intent, but everything else is the grant application. Without it being in place first, the rest of it doesn't matter for a romantic relationship, but even the best letter of intent won't get you anywhere if your application doesn't meet the funder's criteria or your project/organization doesn't meet their goals or vice versa.

      And I have clearly been working too much if I am comparing dating to grant writing

    • NotQuiteBrummie says:

      Why was this comment downvoted?

    • MordsithJ says:

      I don't think he's making light of physical attractiveness. My impression is that he's making fun of people who put it as their number one criteria, and give it no further thought. The pictures of sexy women in this article are a kind of No Shit Sherlock thing.

    • Physical attraction often catches someone eye, but it can only keep someone interested for so long. I have several examples in my own life when I went out with someone because they were attractive, only to find how not compatible we were in anything else. That person, almost instantly, became much less attractive to me, even on a physical level. I have also been in situations where I met someone I was not particularly attracted to immediately on a physical level, but as I got to know them my attraction became physical. There are also situations like the one I'm currently in, where there was instant attraction but the attraction was like "oh cool, this guy is way cute." And it wasn't until I got to know him even better that whatever attraction I initially had went from being more than a passing thought.

  8. Monica Morén says:

    I didn´t think I would see you referring to women as beeing 10:s or 7:s as in fact you are.There´s no secret that there are lots of attractive people and that there´s a common opinion of whats more or less attractive, but as I said, reffering to women in the way you do is simply not all right.

    Sorry if my english is bad!

    • Robjection says:

      Yeah, the Doc said in the footnote that he hated referring to women in that way. The only reason he did it was because he needed a shorthand way of getting his point across.

      Maybe there was a better way?

    • I agree. We all have our own versions of what is a perfect 10 on our scales, but I know for sure my 10 is certainly not the same as my friend's and so on. Also this use of numbers and a scale for appearance really gets into the fabric of society, making women truly feel like there is an objective scale and further that the numbers matter in the first place (because why discuss a scale at all otherwise). Worst of all, that there is a real external value attached to those numbers. That being a 10 is BETTER than being a 6 or whatever.

      I remember the first time wondering where I fit on that scale, realising that people would be looking at me and giving my appearance some kind of grade. It seemed really unfair and up until that point I had been happy in my ignorance. I don't think that that should ever be something a girl (or boy for that matter) should ask herself. It's irrelevant. It really is. People are attracted to all kinds of looks (witness how sexy so many women find Benedict Cumberbatch, hardly a GQ model – or heck the way the good doctor goes on and on about Kat Dennings who I think is stunning but she's not a slender blonde model, which is often considered a 10), people have their own ideal version of attractiveness. We don't need yet another tool for people to feel bad about themselves. And further another tool for men to dismiss women as if they are using some logical objective tool.

      Also if I was with a guy and he was thinking, "You know, she's funny, talented, smart, just all around awesome, that makes up for her not being a 10" that wouldn't make me feel good. In my world being all those things makes me a 10 in the first place. And I want whomever I'm dating to think so. I don't mean I need to be a 10 for everyone, but for him, yup. Just as he would be a 10 for me.

      • I dunno, I feel like there probably is an objective scale. I've asked a pretty wide selection of guys what my "number" is… real life male friends, male strangers, guys on the Internet at sites like Reddit/ OKCupid/HotorNot and other places, boyfriends, etc…. and I always seem to hit somewhere between 4-6 (7 if I'm "hot but not trying," which I think I've achieved like twice in my life.) If there wasn't an objective scale, I'd expect a wider smattering.

        I think the more influence media has on a generation, the more narrow their tastes become. Like how "30 Rock" was the favorite show for everyone aged 25-32 for a while. I find that if I get a greater range of numbers if I ask older folks, 40+… then I go anywhere from a 4 to an 8. But if it's people in my generational range, it's quite narrow. I genuinely think they are being truthful, and that their tastes have just been shaped in a very specific way by the images they've consumed throughout life in a higher dosage than other generations.

        • NotQuiteBrummie says:

          I hope to reach the heady heights of 5 one day. One can only dream.

        • Ah but by your own admission that's not "objective". That's socially constructed, and what is hot actually changes year to year, though possibly not as much as one would like. People's tastes are shaped over time, and further can change. I used to be all about tall skinny clean shaven dudes for most of my life, then as I got older I started to be more and more interested in beefy guys with beards. No clue why that happened, but I don't mind. Now my tastes are pretty much all over the place, which I love.

          The scale is simply not objective. There is no universal truth for beauty, and even those painters who attempted to make it a mathematical thing in the past, many of their "beautiful" subjects are hardly considered now to be anymore. Heck have you seen that OFFICE episode where the office is divided over whether or not Hilary Swank is hot? I love that episode because it demonstrates just how varied each of our individual scales can be.

          Does this mean that society hasn't helped inform tastes, no of course not. But it still isn't objective. It is in fact the definition of subjective. For you that likely means, "So what, people still think they know what's hot", and sure, there might be some consensus based on current systemic beliefs, but that wasn't actually my point. My point was that the scale does more harm than good.

          For example, why do you care what number you supposedly are? All that you need concern yourself with is who you are as a person, the way you live your life, and attracting someone who compliments your personality etc. You don't want the kind of person who rates you low for no other reason than what society has manipulated him into thinking. You want someone who adores you to pieces, who thinks all the things that make you you (including your appearance) make you a 10.

          But I've read enough of your posts to know how much being a 10, or at least an 8 matters to you (and no matter how many people here say you are just lovely to look at, it's these other people that have the final say on your looks). And that makes me sad. Because it means it's too late, you've already internalised this scale as something relevant and important. I can only hope eventually you realise how wrongheaded that view is. But until then I think you are unfortunately an excellent example of the truly negative effect this kind of scale has on women.

          • NotQuiteBrummie says:

            Because at the beginning the "number" they think is all you have going for you.

          • People who think about attraction in a healthier way don't generally focus on "numbers." I think it's a lot more common for people to find some people attractive or very attractive, some people average, and some people not so attractive. In some cases, that can subsequently change a little bit after getting to know someone or looking at them a little longer, and in others the impression is permanent. But there aren't that many people out there who would be interested in a "10" when they'd pass on an otherwise similar "8."

          • 'People who think about attraction in a healthier way don't generally focus on "numbers."'

            Not true, all the girls I've gone out with I knew they weren't 10's, not physically speaking anyway (and that's all the number represents, it doesn't encompass personality, etc), but the combination of their appearance and their personality and how well it resonated with me made me attracted to them.

            I knew there were prettier girls around, but I was going out with them, not those other girls, so it didn't affect me.

            'You want someone who adores you to pieces, who thinks all the things that make you you (including your appearance) make you a 10. '

            This reeks of feel-good jargon that doesn't really have anything behind it.

          • They were 10s to you and maybe a 2 to the guy at the next table over, a 5 at the one next to him, and a 7 from the guy at the bar. Which is normal because this stuff is subjective. Problems only crop up if people are all insecure about dating someone that the peanut gallery thinks is a 5, but they think is a 10.

            Thankfully most people grow out of this by the end of high school, with the remaining stragglers mostly catching up in their mid-20s. Some people never grow out of it, though.

          • There's nothing to grow out of.

            I don't give a flying fuck what the outside world thinks of my partners.

            What matters is how I think of them, and rating potential partners in terms of physical attractiveness is NOT a sign of immaturity.

          • Sorry, I wasn't as clear as I wanted to be. Rating people on whatever scale is not immature. Refusing to date someone that is not what your buddies think is a 10, if you think that person is a 10 is immature.

            Maybe it will be more clear if I illustrate with an example. I have some jerkwad cousins and some more insecure/immature/eager to please cousins. I have seen the jerkwads harass the others into not dating or dumping women that the I/I/EP cousins were really attracted to by calling the women ugly or fat or whatever more than once**. The I/I/EP cousins needed their choices to be 10s to the jerkwads as well as to themselves. THAT is what I meant by immature.

            ** Not that the jerkwads care one way or another. They just like imposing their will on others and seeing if they can make people do stuff that they don't want to do

          • If you're attracted to someone, like having sex with them, and generally enjoy how they look, then what on earth is the point of trying to minutely describe why you think someone sitting at the next table is one point higher and that woman who you work with is one point lower? It seems like inserting a bunch of unnecessary jargon (which seems common to PUA manuals) into the simple concept of someone being hot enough for you to want to sleep with them.

          • Rating people on physical scales from 1 to 10 has nothing whatever to do with PUA jargon.

            I can be with someone and still think the person sitting across the room has a figure I like and rates on my scale.

          • Ratings existed before PUA stuff, but PUAs are some of the worst about fetishizing them. Frankly, I think it's because this way of talking about people lends itself to bragging and seeking external approval.

            But, again, what's the point of the scale? Why can't you just note that the person on the other side of the room is attractive rather than trying to pinpoint the minute differences between a 7 and an 8? If you don't need to tell the whole world about it, what's even the use of a number?

          • ' Why can't you just note that the person on the other side of the room is attractive rather than trying to pinpoint the minute differences between a 7 and an 8?'

            Because they're attractive to varying degrees and using a 1-10 scale is a simple way of going about 'quantifying' the variance.

          • But why do you need to quantify the difference? We don't typically rate people's kindness, or sense of humor, or income, or taste in literature on a ten-point scale. For those traits, it's more than sufficient to identify whether someone has enough of them to make us happy. Why does appearance warrant that degree of specificity, especially if you're not planning on going online to brag about how you bagged an 8 the day afterwards and are purely focusing on your own desires?

          • Excellent points, though I admit I totally rate people's tastes in literature on a ten point scale. You like "Shades of Gray?" Automatic -1. (Sorry, Mom.)

          • 'But why do you need to quantify the difference? We don't typically rate people's kindness, or sense of humor, or income, or taste in literature on a ten-point scale'

            You might not, plenty of people do.

            Enough to make us happy is not out of sync with ranking on a 10 point scale, you don't need a 10 to be happy.

            Also, if you far enough you don't 'need' to do anything, you don't need to exist for instance, so I find asking that question kind of silly.

          • "'But why do you need to quantify the difference? We don't typically rate people's kindness, or sense of humor, or income, or taste in literature on a ten-point scale'

            You might not, plenty of people do. "

            Really? How many people do you know who literally will say, "A is an 8 when it comes to humor" or "B is a 6 for kindness" or whatever? Because I've never met anyone who does those things, though I've heard a fair number refer to looks by numbers.

          • Plenty of people IRL, it's an intuitive thing that means the exact same thing as saying A is better than B or C has more than D.

          • Seriously? You're saying that you, personally, have heard people talking out loud saying things like, "She's an 8 in humor" and "He's a 6 for kindness"? Because googling those terms doesn't brings up zero results, whereas googling them for looks ("She's an 8 in looks") does. If this is remotely common, why has no one ever done it on the internet?

            Or you're just assuming people do it without having actually heard it done because it serves your point? I don't know why you'd assume other people do when you yourself admitted that you don't except for looks.

            And it's obviously not intuitive, or you would see kids doing it and not only teens and adults who've picked it up from cultural messages. I've never heard a child rate another child on anything based on a number, unless it's relating what mark the other kid got.

          • Guys google didn't find it, it must not exist.

            Come on Mel, I know you're smarter than that.

            I have lots of different professors in the physics department where I go to scale. If I were discussing the matter of who was the better teacher with fellow students and I said professor A was a 10 versus professor B who was a 6 everyone would know what I mean.

          • They'd know what you meant, sure. But would they ever phrase it like that themselves?

          • Yes.

          • Eh, we know different people, I suppose.

            Personally, I'd rate anyone who I heard talking about professors in that manner to be pretty low on the social calibration scale.

            Obviously, no one's going to talk you out of this habit, but I don't think you should be surprised if others find it immature.

          • Person A is better at doing their job than person B.

            Or if professor A is a 10 than professor B is a 6.

            Nothing immature about that, clearly I'm not saying these things to their faces.

          • But why not just say that professor A is really amazing and B is decent but not as beloved? Or actually offer some useful feedback and talk about what makes professor A so great, and go into some depth about what professor B's strengths and weaknesses are? The second conversation would actually help someone decide whether to take a class.

            Focusing on 10s and 6s just makes me think that the speaker is obsessed with hierarchies, and would frankly make me decide that I might need to seek a second opinion about the merits of the two teachers.

          • Obviously if we're having a discussion on what makes teachers a 10 or a 6 warrants discussion on what warrants giving them that number.

            If professor A is a 10, professor B is a 6 in the sense that B shot guns the equations on the board in a sloppy unrigorous way whereas A gives full explanationa and keeps his rigour in a neat and understandable fashion, etc. etc. would be an example.

          • But in your example, the numbers were by far the least relevant information. That's why the focus on them seems so bizarre.

            In any case, I don't think I'll talk you out of doing this. You're also not going to talk me out of judging you negatively for doing so. I don't know there's much more we can explore here.

          • Just want to point out that if you said "professor A is a 6" literally everyone would assume you were talking about their attractiveness, and no other feature.

          • I honestly have never heard anyone *in real life* (i.e., not online) refer to someone as a number. I've heard plenty of "X is cute, but Y is even hotter" or "A is pretty smart, but B is a genius," but none of this numerical scale business. So I'd probably find it really weird to hear someone ranking strangers' body shapes or professorial excellence in that manner.

          • Actually, now that I think about it, I *have* heard boys refer to girls using numbers…when I was in junior high. Fortunately, I haven't noticed people of my acquaintance who are older than about 14 doing this.

          • Guys guys Joy hasn't heard the numerical ranking since junior high, therefore concordantly vica vi ergo only junior high people do it and joy is automatically more mature than the people who do it! Brilliant!

          • Just because they would know what you mean doesn't mean that, as you said above, "plenty of people" do rate other qualities that way. Everyone would know what I meant if we were discussing cute dogs and I said I think golden retrievers are a 7 and poodles are a 5, but surely you wouldn't claim that people regularly do go around giving dogs numerical cuteness ratings? (Or, well, maybe you would claim that just so you wouldn't have to admit that your argument doesn't prove what you think it does.)

            And I notice you didn't say that you have in fact heard other people say the examples I gave or similar, so it appears you're avoiding that question–and why would you be avoiding it unless you actually haven't heard anyone say those things?

            Obviously it's easier to just deflect with your favorite patronizing comments.

            Funnily enough, google is a very good way of telling whether certain language usage is common or not. The professional copyeditors at major publishing houses that I work with regularly use google results to determine whether particular phrases are in common usage or not. But I guess you know more about how to tell what language people use than people who follow language for a living, right! :P

            And this is the point where I stop bothering to talk to you, because yet again you've proven that you'd rather contradict things you yourself have said in the last hour, avoid direct questions, and make snarky remarks than admit that any part of your thinking might have the slightest logical flaw.

          • And this is the point where I stop bothering to talk to you, because yet again you've proven that you'd rather contradict things you yourself have said in the last hour, avoid direct questions, and make snarky remarks than admit that any part of your thinking might have the slightest logical flaw.

            I'll survive somehow, I'm sure.

            I never said it was common generally, 'plenty' can mean several people in my immediate vicinity, that's not general or objecitve, but it's more than a few.

          • **Realized I inadvertently messed up the grammar of a sentence while adjusting the phrasing. It should read, "Because googling those terms brings up zero results, whereas googling them for looks ("She's an 8 in looks") does find results."

            (It was originally, "doesn't bring up any results"/"does".)

          • Quoting you from a comment directly below:

            "The 'scale' pertains to physical attractiveness only, it doesn't really rate people in terms of personality.

            < snip >

            When evaulating people on an emotional and personality scale, I guess you could use numbers but I just see how well they vibe with my own personality."

            And now you're saying that all sorts of people do actually rate personality on a scale?

            Even if they did, that wouldn't explain why you, personally, think physical attraction needs a numerical scale but seeing how you "vibe" is enough when it comes to personality.

          • Harder to quantify and judge personaltiy, easier to do with looks, especially if you don't know the person. You don't need to know the person to rate their looks.

          • I don't know anyone who has a number system for those things, except for Marty's with regard to literature mentioned above. If someone talked about income or humor that way, I'd think they were at best kind of weird.

            I just don't see what the point of it is. It doesn't appear to have any practical use beyond bragging purposes, and it seems to promote an excessive focus on examining small details of appearance.

          • 'I don't know anyone who has a number system for those things'

            I guess they must not exist then.

          • It probably exists. Most things exist, somewhere. But I see no evidence that it's at all common. You admit you don't do it yourself, and no one's chiming in to say they do or that it's an ordinary thing their friends do.

          • Because Chucky here needs a quick and easy way to silently judge the women around him.

          • OtherRoooToo says:

            That and he's obsessed with homosocial status (and doesn't seem sufficiently self-aware to be fully cognizant of it).

            The only people I know who relentlessly rank women like that are obsessed with what their brodudes think of the women they're "dating" — so much so that, like the example iszdan gave above, they'll stop dating someone to whom they're very attracted if it's someone over whom their bro-friends give them a hard time.

          • You must not have read the part where I said I give no flying fucks about how my friends think about the women I date. However, the looks of my partner matter to me, I have to be physically attracted to them to want to date them, so it stands to reason that I judge based on appearance just like I judge based on personality, character, background, education, etc.

            Go ahead sociologist, psycho-analyze me and get it wrong some more.

          • Yeah, judging isn't a bad thing. Looking at woman A and intuiting 7 vs woman B and intuiting 8 or whatnot. You and everyone on this forum judges too, you're just not using the same phrasing I am and you don't like it because it's not PC. The self-righteousness on these boards is over 9000, seriously.

          • Honestly, I don't see the difference between using a numeric scale and words (e.g. "pretty/handsome", "hot/fugly", "attractive/unattractive"). It is all just a ranking system, so what's with the flip out about using numbers?

            Then again, I am a statistician and like numeric scales to quantify fuzzy concepts

          • The vast majority of people I've seen using numbers are immature jerks.

            I believe it's possible to talk about people's attractiveness using numbers without actually being an immature jerk. For example, you might be sufficiently unreflective to have no idea of the social connotations of the language you use. Or you might be a statistician. :P

            The point is that it's hard to know which category you fall into, and at least in America the safe bet is "immature jerk." So if you want to go around using a numerical scale to rate people's appearance, it's probably good to make sure you're also demonstrating that you're not in the "immature jerk" category.

          • Sigh! So that means qualitative methods = maturity. Drat :-)

          • Judging is definitely a bad thing.

          • No it's not.

          • Robjection says:

            You're both right and you're both wrong. It depends on the kind of judgement being made.

          • Exactly. I still consider the scale a silly thing highschool boys do while sitting in the hallway watching girls go by, and not something any mature adult considers a legitimate way of evaluating another person. When I am looking for something romantic (because otherwise physical attraction to someone is irrelevant), I don't think numbers. I think "am I attracted to this person?". It weirds me out to think people actually do go around evaluating people and placing them on some scale. It's weird because, again, I don't see how it matters. Why a scale? Why not just "I like him/her" or "Not so much"? I guess also for me I can find a man to be very handsome and not be at all physically attracted to him. I only ever am attracted to someone once I know something about their personality. I have dated across a full spectrum of looks. So the scale truly is irrelevant.

            I also really think I'm awesome. Am I flawless? Um, no. Definitely not. Oh my no. But I like myself, so I have never worried about being whatever number someone assigns to me because I'm all "You think what you want, I know I'm fabulous!" :) Which, again, I'm sure the response will be "Well bully for you", but I am just pointing out that if you feel good about yourself, you don't need to worry about stupid things like made up scales. That's why so much of the advice given here is about working on yourself first. Despite how many regular posters here think it's BS.

          • It's not BS, despite what you think here, see how easy to try to put forward a general point when you're the only one doing the talking?

            The 'scale' pertains to physical attractiveness only, it doesn't really rate people in terms of personality.

            So when evaluating people on a physical scale I kind of use numbers, but everyone's numbers are different.

            When evaulating people on an emotional and personality scale, I guess you could use numbers but I just see how well they vibe with my own personality.

            Congratulations on dating on a full spectrum of looks, but that's really irrelevant.

            There is nothing wrong with only dating people you're physically attracted to, emotions/personality do not make a romantic relationship by themselves, without physical attraction emotions/personality lead only to a platonic relationship and when people say they want to date they don't want a platnoic relationships.

          • Can I ask why you evaluate people's looks on a scale? A sincere question because I really don't understand its purpose and it would help me I think in this conversation since you obviously think I'm missing something key. And I am willing to concede I might very well be.

            Also, why are my dating habits irrelevant? I am talking from the perspective as one who doesn't base any choices, or indeed ever thinks in scale terms. Is that view not welcome here? Further I am actually also talking about being physically attracted to people. I never date anyone I'm not attracted to, nor am I advocating personality over physical attraction. I am saying that what we are physically attracted to is subjective thus making the concept of a objective scale kind of moot. Now you might concede your scale is totally subjective to your taste which is cool, but Marty talks about polling people's opinions on where she fits on some mythical objective scale of hotness, and further using the results as if they are some kind of scientific data. It's one thing to have a scale that is personal to you and you admit is subjective, it's quite another to insist there is a definitive scale of hotness.

            At any rate, I would still really love to know why the scale is necessary in the first place. And also how you use it. Do you go into every room and automatically place everyone in it on a scale? Or is it just in certain situations?

            I swear these are sincere, not leading questions.

          • Guys like shapely asses, long legs, cute face, and nice boobs on girls, that's just a general result. What's not general is to what extent certain features are pronounced and which ones stand out to a guy. So there are alot of girls I think are pretty, cute, and a few I would say are hot or beautiful and there are combinations of the above. What I like most is a 10 and what I like least is a one. What is a particular person's 1 to 10 on a physical attractiveness scale is different, related to a certain degree but different.

            When I read your paragraph, you and people witth your same message like nerdlove make it seem like physical attractiveness is this stupid useless thing that doesn't matter to relationships. Or that people looking for certain physical traits in their partners are somehow not really interested in their partners, which is very far from the truth.

            So yes, it did seem like you were advocating dating people you weren't physical attracted to and that you were advocating personality one hundred percent over physical attractiveness. If that's not what you were going for, I would consider rephrasing some things.

          • Okay, I understand the concept of a scale, but I really really want to know why you feel you need to place people on a scale in the first place. Let me try to rephrase myself, as you suggested, since you don't seem to get my meaning.

            When I'm attracted to someone physically, I don't think "Oh yeah baby, give me some of that 8." I think "Oh yeah baby." End of story. When I am in a room with multiple people I find physically attractive, I don't feel any obligation to rank them. I just enjoy being around attractive guys. Example: I was on set a few weeks ago and there were two male actors there. I found both quite attractive, though they couldn't have been more different from each other, and enjoyed talking to whichever was free to talk with. I didn't make a decision which I would rank higher, I just enjoyed being attracted to them (and also getting to know them as individuals).

            My main problem is I don't understand what purpose the scale serves. But since what I write isn't clear to you, I will offer a suggestion as to maybe what it serves in an attempt at empathy. Does, for example, a scale determines which girl you speak with first?

            Is that kind of what it's for? That you have degrees of your physical attraction? That might be the missing link for me. Because for me, the initial thought is "Am I attracted or not attracted?" There is no scale in attraction. Now, as I get to know people, I can then determine who I like better and see better as a romantic prospect, but that doesn't come from a physical scale. So is it that for you, you have a small attraction to a 3, and a huge attraction to a 10? And then once you get to know them, the numbers can shift.

            OR is it the numbers never shift. A 10 is always a 10 even if you decide her personality is like a sponge. You would still prefer to be intimate with a physical 10 who has a sucky personality, than a 7 who makes you laugh and you think is just the bees knees? Or is she always 10 but you aren't interested in a 10 with a stupid personality?

            Again, sincerely asking. Not attacking. I want to understand.

          • I should add, when it comes to appearance I suppose I could rate people in a room with my subjective scale, but that for me it is meaningless because just because someone might be a very typical attractive person according to society, does not for a moment mean I myself am physically attracted to them.

            Is physical attraction to you based solely off of who is the societally most attractive in the room? Like if there was a hot movie star you would be automatically the most attracted to her? (again, totally sincere, no judgment, I swear)

          • Attraction isn't totally social, I'm cuban and what I like physically is not socially what most cubans like.

          • Well body's can change through exercise and diet and other venues, so the numbers can shift.

            I'd love a physical 10 (what I consider a physical 10) with a personality to match, but I'd never want to be with someone who'se my physical 10 but is stupid or bitchy/bad/mean person.

            There is no purpose to the scale, it's just an intuitive thing in people's minds when I look at a girl and physically she's whatever number to me. Things don't need to have purposes, the universe doesn't have a purpose.

            I know what I want in the sort of person I would like a romantic relationship with (background, eduations, politics, relgion, personality, attitude, etc), but a romantic relationship without physical attractiveness isn't a romantic relationship at all, so that variable in the equations is a necessary one.

          • I'm not a guy or the one addressing the question, but my guess is the scale is a way to decide where you put your energy.

            You can't tell someone's personality until you talk to them. Looks, however, can be an instant sort of qualifier. If you are simultaneously attracted to multiple different people, you have to decide where to put your time and energy. Since you can't judge their personality, you use the scale to decide you'll go the most attractive on down until you find that magical match between looks and personality.

            Or, in the case of a committed relationship, you might use the scale to determine how happy you are and if you continue dating the person. "Okay, current gf is a 7 in looks with an 8 in personality. This other girl is a 9 in looks but a 6 in personality. Am I happy enough to go 7-8 instead of 9-6, yes/no."

            Truth be told, I doubt people are really this conscious or mercenary about it, I think it's just a way to verbalize a largely subconscious process.

          • Chucky, I think you're reading way to much into the article and what people are saying here, and getting over-defensive about it. I'm not seeing any "phrasing" that suggests anyone is saying that physical attraction doesn't matter or that people should date people they're not physically attracted to. I'm not seeing any criticism of people wanting to date people they're physically attracted to. What I am seeing are the suggestions that:

            -if you want a relationship, not just a brief fling, you're best off considering more than just physical attraction
            -there's a lot of variation in what people find physically attractive
            -an individual person's opinion on how physically attractive another individual is can vary over time as their tastes change or as they see different sides to that person
            -rating people with numbers tends to go with a somewhat immature way of thinking and choosing who you date primarily based on their "number" (which is clearly not what you do, since you do think personality is important as well) is probably not healthy

            As far as I can tell, the only part of the above you disagree with is the numerical rating being immature. Which is fine, just maybe stop accusing people of saying other things (like "physical attraction doesn't matter at all" or "date people you're not physically attracted to") that they're not and focus on the things they are actually saying? That'll make it easier for people to address your actual concerns.

            And you also didn't actually answer the question more than one person has asked you. How is thinking of how physically attracted you are to a woman in terms of numbers of more use to you than simply noticing "I'm really attracted to her" or "she's all right" or whatever without the numbers? Why do you prefer to think "she's a 9 and she's a 8" rather than just "she's more attractive than her"? I mean, I don't see any reason why you shouldn't, but I think some of us don't see any reason why taking the extra step of assigning a numerical value to the attraction you're feeling is necessary or useful either. And so we're curious what purpose it serves for you beyond just noticing "she's very attractive/she's pretty attractive/she's kind of attractive/etc."

            (Edit: In case it isn't clear to you, when other people are talking about measuring attraction on a scale, it's specifically the numerical scale they're talking about, not evaluating how physically attractive someone is to you in any way. Noticing how attractive someone is to you = no problem. Assigning them a number = not sure why necessary.)

          • Because she's a 9 and she's an 8 is the same thing as saying she's more attractive then her.

            The number is specific to me, my 10 could be someone's else 2.

          • But assigning numbers is an extra step, isn't it? Presumably first you notice a woman's attractive, and then you have to consciously consider what number you'd assign her? So what we're asking is, why go to the trouble of assigning numbers when you could more quickly and easily say "she's more attractive than her", if they do mean the same thing?

            And the fact that the number is specific to you has no bearing, because your thinking someone is more attractive than someone else without the numbers is also specific to you.

          • But assigning numbers is an extra step, isn't it

            Not really.

            Presumably first you notice a woman's attractive, and then you have to consciously consider what number you'd assign her?

            Kind of, but you have to take an extra step when comparing two people and saying person A is 'more attractive' than person B.

            The amount of steps are actualy less with the scale.

          • I'll be the first to say that looks are important to me in a partner. I've dated someone I wasn't physically attracted to in the past, and it was kind of a nightmare.

            But I don't really spend a lot of time thinking about whether person A is more attractive than person B, with or without numbers. There are people I find attractive, and within that range, it's not that much of a consideration whether the skinny dude with the great smile is hotter than the guy with the pretty eyes. Unless you're looking to one up someone else, this whole concept seems bizarre and convoluted.

          • But you don't need to have your physical ten, plus lots of different features can add up to the point you'd call them a 10. It has doesn't have to do with one upping anybody.

          • But then why do I care if one of the two guys is a 10, or which one is hotter? They're both attractive enough for me to be happy sleeping with them, and I don't know why it needs to go into comparisons at all.

          • It has doesn't have to do with one upping anybody.

            ………

          • But then what is the point of it?

          • What's the point of the unverse?

          • To get into petty arguments on the internet for no reason?

            Because then congratulations, you've fulfilled your purpose.

          • What's the point of calling guys creepers, you could just say he's a person who's making me uncomfortable at the present time.

            Double standards, you guys have them in spades.

          • +10 Universe points for non sequiturs

          • I think the point is that Chucky doesn't care about discussing the actual subject, he just wants to tell everyone else they're wrong as often as possible, even when they're just trying to understand his POV. :P

          • Chucky Lopez says:

            I think the point is asking the point of the rating scale is silly at this point, it is an intuitive way of translating this person is attractive to the varying degrees of attractiveness that they actually are. That people use this in an immature fashion doesn't make the action itself immature, and continually pegging it this way is what is actually immature.

          • How is it less steps with the scale? I can look at two guys and immediately feel which one I find more physically attractive. It takes no steps at all. It takes one step to put that feeling into words: "I find A more attractive than B."

            If I was rating with numbers, I'd have to think about not only which guy I felt more attracted to, but also where each would fall on my overall numerical scale, and then specific those numbers. How is that not more steps?

          • Except you don't need to compare people to implement the scale numbers.

          • You… don't need to compare people to notice how attracted you feel to them in general either.

            Since you seem to be having so much trouble with this concept, let me try one more time, as clearly as possible. The extra step is bolded.

            Situation 1: You're looking at one woman and noticing how attractive you find her.

            You could simply feel very attracted, or only kind of attracted, and just feel that without putting it into words. If someone asked you, you could use those exact words ("she's very attractive").

            Or you could feel very attracted or only kind of attracted, and then consider where that level of attraction falls on your numerical scale. If someone asked you, you could use the words or the number.

            Situation 2: You're looking at two women together, or looking at one woman and thinking of another.

            You could simply feel how attracted you are to each, and not need to put it into words. If someone asked you, you could simply say the feeling ("she's more attractive than her").

            Or you could feel how attracted you are to each, and then assign each a number on your numerical scale. If someone asked you, you could express it in the words or the numbers. Notice that two numbers are required to express what can be gotten across with just one word ("more").

            But I suspect the problem is not that you don't actually understand, but that pretending not to understand allows you to keep arguing a point that obviously makes no sense if you bothered to follow the conversation properly.

          • You're having a hard time Mel, so I'll try to make it simple for you.

            I like blue eyes, shapely asses, short bodies, medium to large breasts, red hair, brown hair, blonde hair, black hair, asians, light to dark skin, petite stature, the list really goes on.

            Any combination of these could warrant my intuiting the number 10, or the number 10, or the number 6, depending on the person I'm looking at, and has nothing to do with rating them against someone else.

            Obviously I could rate them against each other, but that isn't necesary to make the scale work.

          • Also, I don't have a 10 in my head that I'm rating every woman I see against.

          • Did you read my "Situation 1", Chucky? Where you're just looking at one woman and not rating her against anyone else? And it still requires an extra step to come up with a number?

            Here's I'll copy and paste it again for you, since apparently you're having such a hard time following simple explanations you feel the need to cover this by insulting other people:

            Situation 1: You're looking at one woman and noticing how attractive you find her.

            You could simply feel very attracted, or only kind of attracted, and just feel that without putting it into words. If someone asked you, you could use those exact words ("she's very attractive").

            Or you could feel very attracted or only kind of attracted, and then consider where that level of attraction falls on your numerical scale. If someone asked you, you could use the words or the number.

            The bolding is the extra step. There is no comparing or rating against other people happening. There is still an extra step. Is that simple enough for you yet? I apologize for originally assuming that you could handle two separate examples being given in the same comment without blurring them into one.

            If it's not, welp, I tried.

          • Chucky Lopez says:

            She's very attractive is not mutually exclusive to she's an 8-10, she's kind of attractive is not mutually exclusive to she's a 5-7, she's not very attractive is not mutually exclusive to she's a 3-4, she's not attractive is not mutually exclusive to she's a 1-2. I'm sorry I'm not phrasing it in the PC way you'd like to read, but that doesn't mean I'm not discussing the issue at hand. I think you're just question begging at this point.

          • Except the scales aren't made-up. Yes, it's great you think you're fabulous…. but if no one else thinks you're fabulous, well, that doesn't really get you a date at the end of the day. Someone thinking you're attractive does. Which is where the Talk of the Scale comes from.

            I don't think guys necessarily verbalize their scale choices, but I do think there is some subconscious weighing going on. People want to be with the best option; hell, I *want* people to be with the best option. I've been "settled" for before, and it SUCKED. I'd much prefer a guy compare me to another chick, decide the other chick is hotter, and go for her. I think it's completely understandable, and human nature, that you want the best, compatible mate you can get. Why is it such a surprise that a lot of guys would then translate that as "the most attractive and most compatible"?

          • But when people here Marty rate you highly, that gets ignored. You are not nearly as objective as you think you are. And that's why the scale is stupid. You only take the information that reinforces your self belief. So ultimately it comes down to how you feel about yourself. So damn cheesy, I know. And you know what? Also so damn obnoxious. Because it's hard to feel good about yourself when everyone else makes you think you aren't worthy, so I do get it. We all go to that place sometimes.

            I can't fix it for you. I can only say what I see. And if you are allowed to claim your personal views as being completely logically objective, so can I. Let's have an objective off! ;)

            Anyway, sorry for just saying the same old crap you like to dismiss. Like everyone else here who says the same old crap you like to dismiss, I am sincerely, truly, utterly just trying to help. Really. 'Cause I think you're pretty cool.

          • Well this site/forum is not a good barometer by any measure, since 1) it's made up mostly of women 2) measurement of my attractiveness comes *after* knowledge of my personality through comments and writing and 3) it's based on a very narrow range of my best pictures in FB. Those are not guidelines that are going to get you the same results as just a straight-up "rate my physical looks 1-10" experiment.

            If you want to play the Evidence Logic-off, then you need to present different results using the same perimeters of the original experiments to prove the original hypothesis wrong. This is actually one area where "self-belief" is besides the point, like your "fabulous" example.

          • NotQuiteBrummie says:

            Not to mention the knowledge that you're obviously not fond of your looks so it's not as if many people who are "trying to help" will flat out agree with your conclusion.

          • Yes, I'm sure there is some amount of pity or good intentions involved as well.

          • FormerlyShyGuy says:

            Which means that no matter how sincere someone compliments you, you will come to the insulting conclusion that they are lying to you.

          • No, it means I consider their compliments neutral because of context. "Lying" is a pretty negative spin on it; I think of it more as politeness, empathy, or good manners.

            For example, I've given presentations or speeches in the past where I *know* I was pretty god awful and yet still gotten compliments. Were those people "lying"? Not in a malicious or harmful sort of way; they were being socially well-calibrated by expressing positivity in a situation where you're supposed to compliment someone.

            It goes back to the subjective/objective perspective. I'm more likely to believe my boss' or professors' compliments or criticisms because they have no emotional stake in being polite or complimentary. I think people here have very good intentions, but are emotionally invested in me (and I in them!), and so can't fully be objective. It's not that anyone here is lying… it's that they're approaching the situation from a different angle, one that I don't find helpful in certain contexts.

          • Robjection says:

            "For example, I've given presentations or speeches in the past where I *know* I was pretty god awful and yet still gotten compliments. Were those people "lying"? Not in a malicious or harmful sort of way; they were being socially well-calibrated by expressing positivity in a situation where you're supposed to compliment someone."

            Eh, I'd still call that lying. Even if the purpose of the lie is benevolent, it is still telling a falsehood deliberately and with the knowledge that it is a falsehood. Unless they genuinely believed what they were saying, in which case they were saying what they believed to be true regardless of whether or not it was true, thus not lying.

          • FWIW, I think it's actively unhelpful to reassure you about your looks, because doing so buys into the larger set of beliefs that I think is causing you trouble. I'm sure it makes the person doing the reassuring feel better, but I don't think it actually helps you.

            I bring this up since I'd like to think you can trust things I say to you, because if anything my emotional stake is in being anti-complimentary.

          • Nobody is gonna buy the product if the wrapping is deficient, know what I'm saying? Especially if you want to make love to that wrapper…. okay, now my metaphor isn't working.

            I am DO think the scale IS objective, but its objectivity depends on age/generation. It seems people's tastes are much more varied when they are older, or in the generation above mine (whether that means people's tastes change as they age, they become more comfortable with their individual tastes, or its less exposure to media as they grew up, hard to say at this point.) There have been quite a lot of psychological studies that show all of the media images of beauty really HAVE warped our sense of perception and beauty. For example, men in the younger generation believe there are many more "10's" out there than there actually are because of how saturated the media is with beauty, and so are less able to be objective about "local" variants.

            I would also point out I hold the scale as important because it's what guys in my generation use to judge women. Since I want to be attractive enough to bring in a mate, the scale is important because it gives me a sense of where I am and what I can hope to attract. Is it really a negative thing to know how much the opposite sex finds you physically attractive, when such a premium is placed on that trait?

          • I'll defend having scales with regards to physical beauty forever, but I'll be the first to say that's only so much overlap from person to person, guy #1's 10 might be guy #2's 7 or 8, depends on what they're looking for and what floats their boat sexually. Some guys like ass above all, other guys like boobs above all, other guys like legs above all, perhaps find your best feature and look for guys who go for that physically?

          • Sadly I can't display my brain in most cases. It gets annoyed when I oil it up too much.

            Again, I side-eye the whole "scale is objective." Maybe it is for other people, but for me the range has been pretty dependable and narrow despite the variety of guys I've asked. Is the scale still considered subjective if it's objective for some people, but subjective on others?
            http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/file

          • I meant your best physical feature, ass, legs, boobs, whatever, they gotta like the wrapping remember.

          • And the numbers given to me by guys demonstrate there IS no best physical feature. Which is why I'm saying it *isn't* subjective, since it's still based on the features that we have socially coded as sexually significant being arranged in a particular fashion that is accepted as attractive.

          • It is subjective, to those guys where you live. You might move and find out the guys around you think you're a 10, but even that wouldn't be objective either. It takes alot for something to be objective.

          • "Guys like shapely asses, long legs, cute face, and nice boobs on girls, that's just a general result."

            How exactly can you say it's subjective, and then say the above?

          • General isn't objective either. General results can vary, 'objective' resutls can't.

          • Change the population and you might get different results. For example, in my community thin is not attractive, so shapely legs, boob and ass are going to look a lot different than it would for a different group. Still important features, perhaps, but very different looks.

          • Possibly, but psychological studies seem to suggest that a "majority" culture's beauty standards will always leak into the subconscious beauty standards of other groups. Like how Western ideals of white skin and narrow noses are extremely popular in Japan and Korea, traits that were not part of the general consciousness before the conquest of Western media.

          • I think pale skin was always popular in Japan and Korea, though, because it meant you were not a peasant. And the leak goes both ways, look at the way having a round butt has entered the "majority" taste. If you look at old movies from the 70s-90s there were a lot of flat butts.

          • Oh sure, Tina Fey has a whole section in "Bossypants" about that very phenomenon. But there still is a lot of "majority" in beauty standards even in local or more minority cultures, like how anorexia has entered local cultures with the spread of Western media when it did not exist before. ("Cultural" disease epidemiology is fascinating.)

          • It is interesting, for sure. Personally, though, I think the individual variation in taste is so broad that the cultural ideal is pretty "stretchy". Most folks don't even approach the ideal, but most people end up attracting someone at some point between puberty and death.

          • Is that because of individual taste, or convenience?

            Okay, so my friends always told me," Well he must be attracted to you, he's dating you!" However, it turns out my exes were dating me because they felt I was their only option.

            If people's options were limitless-if every person practiced the Abundance Mentality, in which they believed they could attract their ideal partner-would the mating pattern change at all? How many people do we think are with their partner out of absolute attraction (they are/close to my ideal), compromise (they are not my ideal in looks but they are in personality/values/lifestyle), or desperation (they are what I can attract)?

            People dating or marrying someone is just not a good barometer for measuring if people's tastes in looks are actually diverse. As my dating history shows, people have lots of reasons for entering into a relationship besides genuinely wanting that person.

          • Sheet. People couple for every reason under the sun. Physical attraction, intellectual attraction, companionship, financial exchange, merging of two fortunes, political alliances, because one has drugs and the other is an addict, because one tolerates a nonsexual kink, shared sexual kinks, because one does that thing with the tongue right there, and any combination of the above and about a million factors I am too lazy to type out.

            However, I'd hazard a guess that at the time the relationship was entered in committed situations those reasons added up to attraction. Type varies, but committing to a relationship where you feel no attraction is the path to your own misery at some point.

          • "I'll defend having scales with regards to physical beauty forever"

            Yes, you've proven that already.

          • Max is so fucking witty! >9000 OMGzors x11!

        • I would recommend taking the Internet's opinion out of that survey, because the Internet has a known bias against women and I imagine it's skewing your results.

          Also 30 Rock was the favorite show of a very specific demographic of younger people, not all of them (I can't imagine many inner-city Latino people or deep-south whites watch that show).

  9. StarlightArcher says:

    Something else to consider that goes with Values, is Money (especially if you're in a long term commitment/marriage/pre-marriage relationship). The way you approach finances can cripple a relationship. Especially if one of you is about building a nest egg and the other believes credit cards exist to be used.

    Having honest, candid talks about how you approach finances (who makes what, who has access to what, how it will be spent) is sooo vital and most couples put it off until half-past never. It's in my top five list of things, right beside religion and cat-lover.

    • Oh hell yeah. Even in dating this matters. If one of you is a terrible cheapskate (example: me) being with someone extravagant on a date is awkward, uncomfortable, and all over no fun. Once you get beyond just dating then these topics can go nuclear if there is a value mismatch

  10. I'm sort of missing relationship style from this: level of affectionate displays and glurge, frequency of e-contact, how quick she meshes with friend groups or whether you keep those parts of your life semi-independent, security in oneself(are you gonna blow a gasket if she flirts with other dudes, or do you go flirt with the very same dudes?), and sex drives(and whether or not she can handle you satisfying yourself with porn).

    • Oh, those are good ones. I have run into glurge conflicts before. I have very little tolerance for it, and for whatever reason tend to attract a lot of guys who like and need a lot of that. I actually had to put my dating profile through a rewrite at one point because I was pretty much only attracting men of that type, and found I got much better responses when I made it a little less sweet sounding.

    • This is vitally important. Most of my romantic endeavors are nipped in the bud for this exact reason. I like lots of space and I'm super cool with having a date and then saying, "Well, that was fun! Call me next week?" But for some people, meeting less than x times in y time period is a sign of inaffection. I'm a low maintenance type person, I have my own thing going on and if anything, I'd most like to be romantic with someone who has their own thing going on.

      So, yes. Relationship expectations are super important. Then there's PDA and the mixed orientation thing…

  11. Whats glurge and how is it different from affection? It sounds disgusting and more than a little infantalizing. Holding hands or walking arm in arm with some public kissing or hugging is enough. Anything else is making the public an audience from your private life and that goes against proper public behavior.

    • I don't think it's really restricted to PDA (something I'm personally fine with). The term originated with those sappy inspirational stories that people forward to their irritated relatives. When I think of it in a relationship context, I'm thinking of cutesy nicknames and grand romantic gestures and buying roses and anything that's generally very sugary and sentimental.

      It's not a moral judgment. It's just not my style or something that works for me in relationships. I tend to value affection that's expressed in other ways a great deal more, so the guy ends up disappointed that I'm not reacting with sufficient swooning and generally isn't satisfied with my efforts to return the glurge either.

      • Yeah, that would not work for me. Cutesy and I are not on speaking terms and the last thing I need is another name.

      • I'm going to be really pissed if anybody calls me by a cutesy name. I hate being referred to by a nick-name, Grand romantic gestures are fun on occasion but they do not make for a good, long-term relationship.

        • I think I'm fine with cutesy nicknames (I've been known to call people I'm dating "cutie" or "Mr. Hot Buns"…in private, though) and roses and whatnot.

          What would "glurge" it for me would be if it comes on too strong, too fast and seems insincere and manipulative. Which generic gestures often do. Generic "romantic" gestures like roses and amping up the shmoopy-shmoopy around friends are often the sign of a narcissist who just wants attention for "being romantic/such a great guy." I think most people prefer gestures that show the gift giver appreciate/listens to/pays attention to who their partner is as an individual (as well as their comfort level w/r/t PDA around groups).

  12. chinchilla says:

    Well the comments just confirmed for me that using numbers to rate people is weird. Not that I needed that confirmation.

    Sorry Dr Nerdlove, I understand why you used it, but maybe just using 'more physically attractive' and 'less physically attractive' would have worked as well.

    Maybe it's because I'm not American, but nerds around here see the number rating system as something douchebags who peaked in high school would use. It's sort of seen as being a bit on the anti-intellectual side.

    • I think most people just use it as a verbalization of a subconscious process. I really don't see how it is either that mysterious or that disgraceful.

      • chinchilla says:

        I think weird was a poor choice of words, it doesn't work without tone. I don't mean weird as mysterious, I mean it as unfamiliar, with a tone of ick. I don't think it's as simple as a verbalization of a subconscious process.

        The way it is viewed here (at least with the kinds of people who are my friends and family) there is an attendant judgement that comes with that specific numbering system, and it's very much tied in with the objectification of women. Like I've said below, I don't know anyone who uses the numbering system personally. I've only come across it on the internet and the odd popped-collar type in clubs.

        • Everyone objectifies, when you look at a person and say that they're hot you're objectifying them (men or women), it's also not a bad thing because looks are the only thing you can rate a stranger by.

          • chinchilla says:

            Or you know, you can be aware that there's more to people than their looks and not objectify them in the first place? There's no obligation to look at someone (re: a women, because men apparently don't get rated on a numerical scale from one to ten) and go '7!' or '3!', or even 'hot' or 'not'. I feel like you don't know what objectification means. I'd love you to try and prove via peer reviewed evidence that everyone does it though.

            If you can't tell the difference in being interested in someone because you like the way they look or basing your entire opinion on them on where they sit on your arbitrary scale of 'what women should look like', then I don't hold much hope for you.

          • Except humans don't do that and even if you're aware that the stranger you think is attractive is a person too, you're still objectifying because you're looking at their bodies like a pretty object. Again, not a bad thing because people are attracted to what they're attracted to. Men get rated on scales just by women and homosexual men just like women are rated by men and homosexual women, no evil double standards born out by the patriarchy to be had here.
            There's no obligation to do anything if you really think about it, so you're pointing out not needing to look at a person and say hot or whatnot is silly, asexuals are the minority in the population, sorry that doesn't vibe with you.
            I know what objectification means, and the definition is a spectrum, you're focusing on one part of the spectrum because you've trained yourself to have a knee jerk reaction that leads you to that, your problem, not mine.
            My opinion on any particular women isn't based entirely on thier looks, but if I'm considering dating them, I have to think they're physically attractive, again I'm sorry I'm not in the pure realm of the asexuals where they actually care about people, unlike the sexuals where we care about silly things like sexual attraction. We all deserve a good flogging, I'm sure.

          • chinchilla says:

            Nope. Objectification doesn't mean finding a stranger attractive, any more than being aware of people's humanity is a knee jerk reaction. Also the knee jerk reaction thing is untrue, rude and stupid thing to say, since you have no proof of that, you'd just like to believe it's true because it fits your world view. You can just keep talking nonsense if you like, but that won't make it true.

            No one has said anywhere that you shouldn't date people who you find attractive, so I have no idea why you've leapt on that particular bandwagon. Your sarcastic comment about having to be asexual to care about people makes no sense.

          • ' You can just keep talking nonsense if you like, but that won't make it true. '

            I'm not talking nonsense, but right back at ya.

    • OtherRoooToo says:

      Maybe it's because I'm not American, but nerds around here see the number rating system as something douchebags who peaked in high school would use"

      Can I ask, then, what you consider your home country?

      Because I'm a girl nerd stuck in N. America with that anti-intellectual system and its attendant mindsets – and would love to move to a place where that insanity is not so standard.

      • 'nerds around here see the number rating system as something douchebags who peaked in high school would use'

        No, people who are too self-righteous for their own good see it that way.

        • chinchilla says:

          Ooooh not one, but two passive-aggressive insults! I'm so hurt I'm bleeding. I think I'll go change my mind everthing because I don't want to be called self-righteous or pandering (Not the pandering! Which, incidentally, used to mean pimping. Thanks, Chaucer).

          • Yep, i'll go change everything about how I think because you've likened what I'm doing to people in your high school. That'll show those immature jerkwads! Look at what good I'm doing!

          • chinchilla says:

            Or you could try not taking things so personally. The comment was an observation not aimed at any commenter in particular – while it's easy to see why you'd take offence, not everything revolves around you.

            Having a waaaahh about it doesn't change that fact that where I am people think that using the number rating system is douchebaggy and involves popped collars and way too much gel in hair.

      • chinchilla says:

        I'll give you a hint, it involves Lord of the Rings and sheep! ;)

      • I'm in the US, and I actually find that the circles I swim in are also not so judgey on looks and really value a girl's intellect and personality. However, I am also in a city that has like a 2:1 female to male ratio, which just makes it really difficult to find single guys in general, and ones you like in particular. I guess I've always self-selected against stupid douchebags who peaked in high school, so maybe they don't even register on my radar.

    • 'using 'more physically attractive' and 'less physically attractive' would have worked as well.'

      It's the same exact shit, one is not PC and doesn't pander to people's sensitivities, big deal.

      • Robjection says:

        It's more like one (the PC one that panders to people's sensitivities as you put it) is explicitly describing only one characteristic, whereas the other (the one that isn't) attempts to put a value on the whole package based on that one characteristic.

        You wouldn't say a good-looking car was a 10 if it was terrible to drive (or even if it wasn't). Why can't you replace "car" with "woman", "drive" with "be with" and "it" with "she" in that sentence and apply the same principle?

        • Sure I'd use numbers to describe a car's looks just like I describe a woman's looks. When guys say a girl is a 10, they're describing what she looks like, they're not applying that rating to her as a person. Emotional reactions often don't let you see the bigger and correct picture.

          • Robjection says:

            Really? Then you are the first person I have ever known to casually rate the looks of a car (or indeed any object) on a numeric scale.

            Honestly, if you want the numeric scale to be considered an acceptable way to describe women's looks, you'd be better off seeking those who abuse it, those who consider a woman's looks to be the same as her value as a person and thus treat the ratings as such, and teaching them how to use it properly.

          • 'Honestly, if you want the numeric scale to be considered an acceptable way to describe women's looks, you'd be better off seeking those who abuse it, those who consider a woman's looks to be the same as her value as a person and thus treat the ratings as such, and teaching them how to use it properly. '

            I've seen some strawmen before, but holy shit man, review what you post on the internet. No one has every said as the person's looks is the same as their value as a person. You need to put down the koolaid.

          • You believe that no one in the entire world has ever valued a woman for nothing other than her looks? Because Robjection wasn't talking about people specifically here, but people in the world at large (which should have been obvious from the word "seeking"–not a whole lot of seeking needed to find people right here). I have seen entire forums of guys who don't see any point in interacting with any woman they wouldn't want to sleep with, or any point in sleeping with a woman everyone would agree is at least an 8–i.e., a woman has no value to them unless she meets a certain level of conventional physical attractiveness. I can point you to examples if you need proof that this is not something Robjection made up.

            Not that I think it's your job to go and teach anyone else anything, but to deny people like this exist (and thus affect our associations with "people who rate women numerically") is ridiculous.

          • 'I have seen entire forums of guys who don't see any point in interacting with any woman they wouldn't want to sleep with, or any point in sleeping with a woman everyone would agree is at least an 8–i.e., a woman has no value to them unless she meets a certain level of conventional physical attractiveness.'

            I know they exist, I've seen them, that isn't really a bad thing, I can relate to not wanting to interact with women unless it's in a romantic nature though I don't take it to that extreme. Guys who have this mindset don't actually see things that way, otherwise they wouldn't interact with their mothers or sisters or female co-workers. When what you want is romance or at the least sex, I've seen guys use the phrasing fuck me or fuck off, that might seem harsh but that's just a kind of in your face pharasing to mean I don't want to settle for friendship with the women I meet. If you didn't treat any phrasing that doesn't vide with your pc way of viewing things, you wouldn't intuit everything into a malevolent light, just like the knee jerk reactions people here have with the phrase PUA or MRA. That's something you'll have to workout for yourself.

          • I see two separate issues here.

            1) Your choice of phrase has social connotations that you may or may not intend. The way it's used by other people is going to influence the way people hear it when it comes from you. You don't really get a choice about this; unless you want to change how other people use numerical rating systems, you'll be dealing with the connotations they've created whenever you use it, even if you mean something different.

            2) Your choice of phrase might be reflecting things about your underlying belief system. This is why people are trying to understand your thought process, not so much for using the numerical system but for being so wildly defensive about it. It's clearly tapping into something very important to you, which makes me suspicious of your urging people to take it less seriously.

          • Chucky, I have literally seen a guy post a photo of a perfectly nice looking woman who was interested in going on a date with him, and watched several other guys tell him not to bother because she was "only" a 7. This is not about my "pc way of viewing things", this is about me having seen guys literally tell another guy that there is no point in even meeting up with a woman who seems open to something romantic/sexual because she isn't pretty enough by consensus. If it was just "fuck me or fuck off", then wouldn't they be telling him to go for it because she seems likely to be open to the first option?

            I've also seen guys talking disparagingly about all women, including their relatives, coworkers, etc., while expressing the sort of attitudes I mentioned above (that women aren't worth they're time unless they're a certain level of attractive).

            It's nice that you live in an imaginary world where no guys "actually see things that way" or mean anything in a "malevolent light", but if so, you shouldn't go around telling other people that they're seeing the world in some skewed way. I'm not saying that a lot of guys are like this, but some do exist, and pretending that's impossible just makes you look naive.

          • Not my problem if some guys standards are too high for their own good.

            You ARE seeing the world in a skewed way, stating that is not naivete, that's making an observation.

            Also I'm not naive, I just prefer not to judge people by their lowest common denominators. Tha'd be like me judging feminists by their lowest common denominators like the radfems who think men are a genetic mistake.

          • "Not my problem if some guys standards are too high for their own good."

            I didn't say it was. In fact, I specifically said I didn't think it's your job to do anything about it. But you claimed Robjection was deluded and that "no one" has "ever" said the things he mentioned, and that is factually untrue.

            "You ARE seeing the world in a skewed way, stating that is not naivete, that's making an observation."

            The only proof you've offered that I or Robjection see the world in a skewed way is that we're saying something exists that you claimed doesn't. Given that I can find concrete examples of that thing existing, somehow that doesn't convince me that I'm the one having trouble seeing reality.

            "Also I'm not naive, I just prefer not to judge people by their lowest common denominators. Tha'd be like me judging feminists by their lowest common denominators like the radfems who think men are a genetic mistake."

            Right. Because right now you're totally not judging me as an unreasonable person who would make assumptions about all people based on the behavior of a few just because you know I'm a feminist, even though I never said anything like that. *rolls eyes* I'm not saying you need to judge other men by what a minority do, I even outright said that not a lot of guys are like that. The only thing I have argued with is your assertion that none of those guys exist at all. If you admit that they do exist, I am happy to agree that we should not judge people in general by those guys.

          • Robjection says:

            "Not that I think it's your job to go and teach anyone else anything, but to deny people like this exist (and thus affect our associations with "people who rate women numerically") is ridiculous."

            It sounds like what Chucky wants is for the numeric scale method of describing attractiveness to be considered acceptable, and I believe that would be more likely to happen if the associated problems with it were eliminated than if they were disregarded. That's why I said that he'd be better off teaching people who misuse it how to use it properly.

            That said, I don't actually expect him to do this. Partly because, as you pointed out, it's not his job, but also because, for a change on this level to work, we could gather every person who has ever commented on this blog and we still wouldn't have enough people to have a decent shot of bringing about that change.

  13. Hobbesian says:

    After giving it a lot of thought I’ve realized that I really don’t care about personality as much as appearance. Looks and sexual interest is what separates friend from more than friend. And honestly I realize my time for finding another partner is running out. The older I get the less attractive my female peers get. I either need to fun one who I find attractive and like her personality enough to not care when her looks go or just accept being alone. I realized during all that authenticity talk on the board that part of what has attracted me to my exes is that everyone wanted them and I had them.

    • chinchilla says:

      Interesting. I'm wondering what your criteria for attractiveness is.

      I can't handle appearance>personality. I get bored really quickly with people like this, especially if the no personality is coupled with self absorption and lack of some sort of rational/intelligent pursuits (these things tend to conflate, in my experience). And when I get bored I get mean. Now that I'm older I don't let myself get stuck in that sort of position any more. Why waste time with someone who's going to bore me? Besides, being a dick to someone I'm in a relationship with, just because I don't find them interesting is a shitty thing to do.

      Then again, I find sexual attraction is a component in my friendships anyway. There a number of people I'm friends with who don't fall into this, partly because of age discrepancies, and partly because I don't find them attractive for whatever reason, and they tend to be on the acquaintance side of things. That said, just because I find my friends sexually attractive doesn't mean I actually intend on having sex with them at any point. It's just a factor on which I base my friendships.

      • To me sexual attraction is really rare. All my friends are male so there’s none there. I’m not saying personality isn’t important either, but it can be cultivated, looks are binary.

        • How the hell are looks binary? I cannot sort everyone I know into magical perfect "attractive" and "not attractive" categories.

          • hobbesiean says:

            well I can. Sorry you lack that ability.

          • Robjection says:

            Just wondering, are there ever any borderline cases? Or have you successfully determined for all cases which combinations of which physical features make one physically attractive and which do not? Either way, this is somewhat curious.

          • hobbesiean says:

            Borderline cases are EXTREMELY rare, and it's more of a "They meet the qualifications, but just barely…" type thing, and it's not even as if I'm saying they aren't objectively aesthetically attractive.. they just aren't attractive to me..

    • Um. Wow dude. I am going to suggest preparing yourself for being alone, because no girl deserves to be stuck with a guy who is contemplating being with her because her personality balances out "her looks going."

      Also, aren't you like late 20's? Are you really freaking claiming there's some huge chasm of attractiveness between early 20's and late 20's?

      Sometimes when you comment, I read your stuff and think," Ya know, he's really not a bad guy. I hope his luck turns around" and then days like today I pray to God I don't end up ten feet near someone who thinks like you do.

      • hobbesiean says:

        Again, keep in mind, I live in a rural shit hole. 90% of the women who are my age or close to it are single moms or morbidly obese. The only way to find anyone even remotely good looking is to try and catch them before one of those two things happens. There is a HUGE chasm of looks between early and late 20's. There doesn't have to be, it's not universal, but it certainly seems to be the case here. The only attractive women I see are the ones on Campus and they are inevitably under 22, anytime I find myself in the company of the grad students, mostly who are still younger than me.. well the attractive ones are taken and all thats left are the dumpy ones I have no interest in.

        I'm not a bad guy, I'm not blaming women for not being what I'm looking for, I'm simply stating how I feel about something. I mean, Hey, I figure at least I'm being honest with myself about what's really important to me. I've decided that I consider looks and physical attraction to be very important, more so than personality. You talk all the time about how you want guys to *want* to be with you. Well that's exactly what I'm expressing here.

        I'm not interested in the whole "well it's what's on the inside that counts" crap.. I've been told that as much as I've been told to just "wait and it will happen".. It doesn't matter whats on the inside, not anymore, you yourself have an entire freaking thread devoted to talking about how guys practically demand first date sex before considering a relationship.

        Well, I'm not interested in first date sex, but if I'm going to date someone I want her to be attractive enough to want to go out with her in the first place.. otherwise I'll just put her in the friend category and move on. like you, I want to be *wanted* but I want to *want* her also. And that isn't going to happen, with any of the women my own age, or socio economic background unless I aim basically exclusively at the under 24's, which to be honest, makes me feel like a pervert. So that's the other thing I've realized, barring an extremely strange quirk of fate, I'm done and out of the dating game after two shitty relationships.

        All that being said, for the first time ever in my life I know exactly what I'm looking for in a woman, Which is I think exactly what the article is talking about, I just happen to have VERY different things I'm looking for than the article suggests I should be looking for. I honestly don't see what's so offensive about saying that I want to be with someone I consider attractive,

        For what it's worth, I do still hope you find what you're looking for in the world.

        • hobbesiean says:

          Also, I'm by no means looking for a '10' whatever that means.. I'm only looking for someone *I* consider attractive.

          • I am going to hazard a guess that what you consider attractive as a whole includes some value and personality qualities. If it doesn't, I am sure we can find a nice Evangelical, high end label flashing, entitled middle class white girl in your town on a Christian dating site :-)

          • hobbesiean says:

            That's very likely. Also, you're going to extremes and finding someone who wouldn't *want* me. Regardless of how physically attractive I found the other person.

            I think mainly I just resented the tone of the article a little bit because it seemed to be dismissing the entire idea that physical attraction was important. yes, I realize that personality is important, but I've met women before who had GREAT personalities who I would never consider anything more than a friend, so clearly I therefore consider physical attraction to be one of the biggest, if not the biggest aspect, since it not only determines whether or not any sort of romantic relationship can form… but whether I'd even talk to her in the first place.

          • Maybe give it a reread. Look at the pictures. The article takes the stance that the importance of looks is a given for most men and there are other factors that need to be considered as well for anything other than a one night stand. I mean the Scarlett Johansson comment sums it up nicely.

          • That's pretty much what I was going to say. I think it can be assumed that anybody looking for a partner is going to initially look for someone they're physically attracted to. Starting the article by telling readers to find someone attractive to you would be as inane as saying "First find someone of your preferred gender" or "Don't forget to breathe."

          • hobbesiean says:

            Right but I would never look at a celebrity and go 'oh, if only they'd love me… ", I just felt the article was tipping too far into the whole "it's what's on the inside that counts the most".. when it clearly isn't for most people.

            I guess i look at it like.. by being willing to put up with drama, and wishywashyness, and drug use, I was able to have (albeit toxic, admittedly) relationships with two really attractive young women. What I'm trying to say is, if that having to put up with those things is what allows me to be in a relationship with someone I actually find physically attractive.. I'm okay with it.

            I'm never going to find a non religious, non drug user, college graduate, who doesn't have kids, who loves the great outdoors and also doesn't watch horror movies or chick flicks.. it's never going to happen. Even though I have a reasonably good feeling that such a hypothetical person would probably be a decent match for me (and I think they do exist, they just don't seem to find me attractive..)

            So I have to settle somewhere along the line.. and if that happens to be drug abuse, the notebook and drama llamas then I've done it before and I'll do it again if I get the chance.

          • I think you have to realize that you're an outlier here, hobbesian, and so you can't really criticize the article for not fitting your personal situation when then it wouldn't fit most other people's.

            You seem to find very few people physically attractive enough to feel a physical interest. That's fine, but I think most people come across quite a few members of the opposite sex they feel at least some physical attraction to on a regular basis.

            You assume people with the personality you'd actually prefer to have wouldn't find you attractive, so you believe your only choice is to choose from people with signficant personality traits you dislike. I think most people believe they have some chance of finding a partner who'll like them and whose personality they'll at least mostly like, and I think that's a reasonable thing to believe.

            You seem to mainly be concerned with having fun and enjoying yourself in the relationship far above any practical concerns. This again is fine, but most people at least at some point in their lives are hoping to be with someone who they can count on have find stability with in the long term. So while for you, physical attraction may out balance factors like drug abuse and melodramatics, for many other people, those things have to be deal breakers, because they couldn't be happy with someone with those qualities.

            Presumably you can understand that for someone who does find plenty of other people attractive, there's no need for them to assume they're going to be incredibly restricted in what sorts of personality traits the people they're attracted to have. They will be able to focus on people with appealing and compatible personalities over people with less appealing and compatible personalities while still being physically attracted to those people. And so for those people, which I think is the majority of people, this article is excellent advice. An article telling people not to worry about personality, just to settle for whatever they can get in someone they find physically attractive, would actually hurt their relationship prospects, even if it's what you personally would find most reassuring to read for your own situation. You see?

          • hobbesiean says:

            I see what you are saying, but I'll bring up one point in counter. I am not looking for primarily 'Fun' in the relationship, since I don't actually enjoy sex or going out all that much.

          • Well, I guess it depends how you define "fun". What I meant wasn't any specific activity but that you appear to value the immediate, somewhat superficial enjoyment of being around someone you find physically attractive over anything else–even your ability to trust her not to hurt you in the long run. I know you've said you feel this is the only sort of person you could be with, but a lot of people would rather be alone than with someone they don't think they could ever trust, and who regularly makes their life more difficult (through necessary drama etc.) in a variety of ways, because the pain of that would outweigh any benefits of having a partner before very long. So it is a difference in your priorities compared to at least a fair number of others'.

          • hobbesiean says:

            See I used to make plans for long term, and then I got better. brass tacks, I'm never going to trust anyone 100% ever again. That ship sailed and was torpedoed repeatedly. At this point I'd be far more comfortable with a known quantity, even if I know it's going to only last a few months.

            If other people are helped by the article, use it to find solace in life, and potentially a partner who loves and respects them, then I'm glad for them.

        • There is something to be said for towns and city that are just not conducive to dating. I am in no way defending hobbesiean's general stance, but there are towns that simply don't have a lot of single people. The way I see it, your choices are either to lower your standards, come to accept the possibility of being single for a long time, or move. Before I met my boyfriend, I was fairly resolved to the possibility that I might not ever meet someone living in my city where single women greatly outnumber single men. I started to plan my life very much in accordance with the possibility that everything I might want to do, I would have to do without a partner (buy a home, have children, travel, etc).

          • I am extremely curious as to where this is?

          • hobbesiean says:

            Every small town where they gutted the public parks and pools rather than desegregate them, every inner city neighborhood with shitty schools, practically the whole of the south eastern US apart from a few major cities, and that's not even mentioning the Reservations which I'm not even going to pretend to know what that's like cause it's a whole world away from the kind of bad I'm moaning about. These places are all over the country, the south, the mid west, almost any place with sizable immigrant populations, the rust belt, any place that used to have jobs but got gutted by globalization basically. The smartest and brightest get the fuck out as fast and as far away as they can before the town has the chance to break them down.

            To paraphrase The Boss, "This town'll rip the bones from your back, it's a suicide rap, you gotta get out while you're young"

            America is tiny islands of wealth and prosperity surrounded by destitution, desperation, poverty, teen pregnancy, drug use. I mean.. for god's sake fucking Krokodil has started to get used in the USA.. that's how desperate people are now… smokeing meth and taking pills isn't bad enough so now they are shooting stuff which eats their flesh into their own bodies to get high..

          • hobbesiean says:

            Oh sorry, I see now that she said a town with a disproportionate number of single women. My mistake. I thought you were being facetious..

          • Yeah, no, I just wanted to know where the ladies were at.

          • Washington DC. It is filled with some of the smartest, most accomplished, beautiful women I've ever met. Proud to have them as my competition :)

      • hobbesiean says:

        I was thinking the same thing a little bit to be honest.

        I may not have worded my feelings as eloquently as Marty did in her threads, but I think that ultimately I'm trying to say basically the same thing.

        • No, you're not. Not even close. Yes, physical attraction is important, but that is literally *all* you are focusing on…. and even worse, you are coupling it with age AND class. You really don't see how problematic and rather creepy it is to say that ONLY women of a certain age and certain socioeconomic background are attractive to you, to the extent you won't even bother considering someone's personality?

          I never said I wanted a guy who ONLY liked my looks. I want both. You *don't* want both. That's why you and I are not talking about the same thing. Moreover, you are not willing to expand or even consider whether your standards of attractiveness are a little broken, or informed by the kind of impulses Izdan has mentioned (seeing attractiveness as some kind of social value signifier.) I mean did you even bother reading *any* of the article??

          • hobbesiean says:

            yes, I read it, but I don't buy what' it's selling. The last few articles have been great, this one I have an issue with.

            I don't consider it creepy to say that a 22 year old college student = more attractive than a 28 year old single mother of 3. Even if physically they look not that much dissimilar.

          • Dude, I'm sorry to have to be the one to point this out, but YOU have some issues YOU need to resolve with YOURSELF.

            First of all, you've convinced yourself that a woman who's both attractive to you and compatible with you doesn't exist, therefore you're automatically unlikely to find her – "self-fulfilling prophecy" and all that.

            Second, you're obviously able to put up with a lot of shitty behaviour simply for the sake of physical attraction, which points in the direction of self-esteem issues (and I'm not talking insecurity or anything more common, but the idea that everything good must come counterbalanced with the bad – a common way to deny yourself happiness).

            Third, your criteria for beauty make no sense. "22 year old college student = more attractive than a 28 year old single mother of 3"?? So, is a 22 year single mum of 3 then more attractive than a 28 single girl? Because either you're confusing compatible lifestyles with beauty, or you view women as a status-symbol and source of self-validation based on general criteria ("oooooh look at my younger college student girlfriend hur-dur").

            Last, and excuse mu bluntness, but you give off "holier than thou" vibes. Now, I know you probably didn't mean it that way, and I kind of understand where you're coming from (after crunching some numbers, I can safely say my sexually-attracted-to ratio is 1 out of a 100 people). Sexual attraction depends on a lot of subconscious things (down to the level of body chemistry and immune system), but it's one thing to acknowledge that YOU are different in that respect, and another to decide it's because everybody else simply isn't attractive enough for you. I've met heaps of attractive and interesting people, but the reason I've not slept with them is a quirk on my side (if you want to call it that), and not some kind of shortcoming on theirs. I don't want to sleep with you =/= you're not good enough for me

            Seriously, EVERY single time a person comes to this site complaining about their dating life, it takes roughly 3 more comments from them for everybody else to clearly see what the issue is (hint: 99% of the time it's THEM). Now, I understand that you have a lot of things going against you (living in a backwater and all that), but with all the things listed above we can drop you in the middle of Love Boat and you'd still find a way to make yourself miserable.

          • *read in a calm explaining voice, not a snarky bitchy one*

          • hobbesiean says:

            a 22 single mum might be objectively more aesthetically more attractive than than the 28 year old, I'd grant you, but I'd still consider her unattractive. Carrying around someone elses kids makes her unattractive to me, not her age. My reason for saying that, the way that I did, is that there are a LOT more 22 year old women who don't have kids than there are 28 year old women in my part of the world who don't have kids.

            If you are an attractive woman, and you are single and dating near me, you are either a PHD student who spends 80 hours a week working on her dissertation.. or you are a divorced/never married single mom who just got out of a relationship you've probably been in since sometime around highschool ending.

            I don't think I have anymore issues that need resolving. I've done all the changing I'm willing to do. Self fulfilling prophecy? Or I just have caught on that that is how my life works. After all, as many many many people have pointed out to me at this site, I have no ability to control other people. I can't make them like me, or be attracted to me, or be attractive to me. So how I can I 'Self fulfill' something involving other people?

          • If you've done all the changing you're willing to do, congratulations, enjoy being alone. It takes change and growth to maintain long-term close friendships, let alone long-term romantic relationships. It is unhealthy enough to believe you are above change and development as a person. It is even more unhealthy that you believe that you don't need to change your view of the world and women when it is horribly fatalistic and unrealistic.

          • hobbesiean says:

            Don't be so patronizing. No one enjoys being alone, but if it's reality, it's reality.

            It doesn't require change, nor growth, to maintain either of those things. What is required is both parties to actually do what they say they are going to do, and not lie or break up with the other party for no reason. Then the situation simply persists.

            People today and their constant worship of 'Change'.. it's revolting. Change is BAD

          • Why is change inherently bad?

          • hobbesiean says:

            I can't explain it any comprehensible fashion, it's just a thing you either agree with or don't.

          • Robjection says:

            Let me have a try.

            There's something comforting about being able to rely on something, and a lack of change means things stay the same, so you can rely on them being a certain way, and that reliability gives comfort. If things change, however, you don't technically know how they will change (or indeed whether it changes for the better or the worse), and that unfamiliarity is unsettling.

            Does that sound sort of like the reason why you are adamantly opposed to change hobbesian? Or have I got it completely wrong?

          • hobbesiean says:

            That sounds extremely like what I feel when it comes to change. The bigger the change, the more it requires me to adapt to it, the worse I feel it is and the more unsettled I become. Even positive changes where my life objectively gets better, are still unsettling to me and I think find ways to make myself miserable again since that is the condition I'm most used to.

          • I'm not trying to be snarky here when I say this: it sounds like you have some SERIOUS issues with control. You know you can't control another person's behavior, and you refuse to change your own attitudes, so you repeat your mantra about how you'll never find what your looking for because that's psychologically more comfortable for you than facing your fear of change and becoming comfortable with adapting to things you cannot control, even good things. Not sure why you're posting here, unless it's to find someone who validates your position. You don't want to change, but if you did, professional counseling would likely be required.

          • hobbesiean says:

            Ya know, like 90% of the time, I post here and I try to help other people and I'm pretty happy to be here. there are a lot of really great people on this forum. Every so often however, DNL posts something that I really steadfastly disagree with.. and everyone goes nuts at me for it. And it always seems to boil down to the same few points. They tell me to change, I refuse, they tell me I need to go see a shrink, i tell them I already am and it isn't helping, they tell me to swap shrinks, i tell them i can't, and round and round it goes. All of this ultimately boils down to one thing, the only way for me to change any more at this point is to give up my personal identity, in effect, to quit being me. And I'm not willing to do that for ANY possible reward.

            If I gave up my fatalistic world view, my negativity, my self derision and mental-self-mortification, my total lack of confidence in my abilities and value as a human being.. i would effectively become a different person.

          • The Simple Man says:

            "If I gave up my fatalistic world view, my negativity, my self derision and mental-self-mortification, my total lack of confidence in my abilities and value as a human being.. i would effectively become a different person."

            Yes a healthier, mature and happier version of youself. How is comfortable of himself and the world…. Yeah because this new person would be a BAD THING?!

          • NotQuiteBrummie says:

            Surely they'd only be happier and more comfortable if things actually changed rather than just their perception of them.

          • hobbesiean says:

            Exactly, thank you. I could be happier and more comfortable without changing my entire personality if things would stop going wrong all the time.

          • I just want to say: I don't need you to change. If you want my help, you know I'm here. All you have to do is ask and I will give you the best effort that I can. But if you haven't asked me to help, and you're not hurting anyone else, it's not my place to interfere.

            For what it's worth, I do think you can change in ways that retain your identity but improve your chances at happiness. If you ever want to talk about it, you know where to find me.

          • hobbesiean says:

            I appreciate that more than I can really put into words, it's really frustrating when things which I consider to be core aspects of my personality are the very self same things everyone else seems to find fault with.

            But for the moment, I'm perfectly content with who I am.

          • hobbesiean says:

            At least personality wise anyway.. Financially, and materially not so much.. but that isn't anything anyone here can help me with.

          • I don't think Rja is "worshiping" change, she's just pointing out what's basically a fact. People change. We can't help it. We experience things out there in the world and they affect our perspective and our mental state and our beliefs and the concrete things happening in our lives.

            Even if two people in a relationship both say what they want and are going to do at the beginning of that relationship, and stick to that within the relationship… they have lives outside that relationship. Lives that it's pretty much impossible to keep static. And when external things in their lives change, what they want, need, and are capable of doing can change to, through no fault or wrong-doing of their own. And it's impossible to plan for every eventuality ahead of time because life is unpredictable.

            I can understand thinking that's bad and not liking it, but there really isn't anything any of your potential partners can do about it. Which is why, like Rja said, it takes change and growth to maintain long-term relationships. If you aren't willing or able to adapt to the changes that happen in your partner's life and that affect her, to let your relationship grow in the new directions circumstances demand of it, then the relationship is probably going to falter.

            In short, saying to someone, "I promise to be there with you and support you as long as everything in your life stays exactly the same" isn't much of a promise, since the condition you're putting on it is impossible. Blaming someone else for not staying completely the same when things around them are changing all the time, and being unwilling to adjust to that, it seems to me makes one a much worse partner than someone who changes because that just happens and makes an effort to express their new wants and needs so the relationship can still work.*

            *Note: Obviously sometimes circumstances change in a way that changes a person significantly for the worse, as has happened to you, and there's nothing wrong with ceasing to support someone when they're unable to or no longer care to meet your needs.

          • hobbesiean says:

            See basically I think my problem now is that I still essentially view myself as being in a relationship, she just chose to abandon it and I didn't. As far as I'm concerned then, she is just an extremely unfaithful partner, while I am still being faithful. I don't want to move on, since that means accepting a change I find unacceptable.

            Effectively in terms of my relationship, I am Fry's Dog in Jurassic Bark.

          • Please talk to a counselor or therapist. I know this is advice people on this site have given you a thousand times, but please do it. Being so stressed by any change in your life like what you described to Robjection is a huge drain on your health and energy. There are coping strategies that exist to help you with handling change. Psychologically speaking, just having someone to really talk through changes in your life will make them easier to handle, because change is better accepted when it is understood.

            We are not a support structure. We do our best around here to offer good advice, but we cannot make you stop pining. There is no point in coming here if you aren't interested in changing. You need to find a support structure for yourself that can help you be more receptive if you want to move forward with your life. And no matter how much you say you don't want to change or move forward, you do. You admit you want company and don't like where you are. Moving forward and changing is your best option.

          • hobbesiean says:

            I * AM * going to a therapist.. And it isn't helping, but I haven't got insurance so the only options I've got are the ones i can go to for free/cheap. And they basically all suck, since if you're good at your job you charge for your work. I've been going to see my therapist since June, and the underlying issues have still not been even approached yet, and I'm basically given no time to talk about them. All that they want to work on is CBT type stuff, none of which I want to do, and none of which I want to change.

            I'm not here to use this site as a support structure, I'm here because I felt I could get some tips towards getting better at Dating initially. However, I've realized that the bulk of the tips given here.. basically boil down to making big changes that I don't want to make. Since, I do not think that I have anything wrong with me. I view myself as honoring the promises I made. I actually hate myself every time I contemplate looking for anyone else. No one else will ever replace her, and thats what I want, a replacement. Mine broke, I want the factory to send me exactly the same model but without the flaws this time.

            Moving forward and moving away are not options for at least another 3 years, but by that point as far as I'm concerned, my life will be over. If I hit 30 and am not married, I have missed the chance and there is no point in looking anymore. This risks spiraling back onto another debate/argument I had with all of you months ago, and so I'm just going to nip it in the bud right now, and since none of my explanations from last time were acceptable, and none of them have changed, all I can say is it's best to just avoid the subject entirely.

          • "After all, as many many many people have pointed out to me at this site, I have no ability to control other people. I can't make them like me, or be attracted to me, or be attractive to me. So how I can I 'Self fulfill' something involving other people? "

            You can't control them, but the choices you make and the way you act can affect the likelihood of some of them liking you or finding you attractive, the kind of people that are more likely want to be around you versus those that don't, and influence (not control) some of their assumptions and expectations of you.

          • hobbesiean says:

            And I'm not interested in that.. they either like me on my terms or I don't need them.

          • And that's your choice. But it's pretty self-fulfilling.

          • hobbesiean says:

            I don't see it that way, I see it as just being how the universe has it worked out for me.

            The universe decided that I shouldn't be happy in my life, and it has made sure I'm not happy in my life. Nothing I can do about it, just the way cosmic fate made it.

          • thepaleking71 says:

            You do realize that just about everything you've said on this thread are the kinds of cliches spouted by people with prolonged, morbid depression, right? You're not a unique snowflake in any way and the characteristics you speak of that make you you aren't personal characteristics at all; they're just symptoms of mental illness. The kinds of changes that DNR and the people on this forum are advocating aren't drastic changes. They're changes in perspective or everyday living. Making them isn't going to change who you are, as who you are was decided long ago in early childhood.

            I don't want to seem like I'm preaching at you. I just know how you feel. I was married (briefly) to an alcoholic narcissist who treated me like shit and then kicked me to the curb because I wasn't good enough for her. That relationship utterly destroyed me. We broke up two years ago and I'm just now getting out of the depression that came from such an upheaval. I'd venture to say that most of the people on this site have very similiar experiences, so when they come at you like they do, it's probably from a place of extreme empathy. I wouldn't wish what I've gone through on anyone, even someone I particularly didn't like.

          • "And I'm not interested in that.. they either like me on my terms or I don't need them." That's the narcissistic attitude an ex of mine had — and why I had to get the hell out of that relationship.

            Blaming fate is a cop-out. From what you've repeatedly posted, you take no responsibility for your role in the relationship and break-up. It's all someone else's fault: your ex's fault, then your therapist not helping you the way you want (yet research has shown CBT is effective in many kinds of treatment), and even the frickin' universe denying you happiness. It's not the job of everyone and everything to make YOU happy. Life is not fair, not for anyone. At least take responsibility for choosing your misery, since you refuse to make the necessary changes to make your life better.

          • hobbesiean says:

            Why would I take responsibility for something I didn't cause?

            Do you have any idea how ludicrous that is?

            Nothing I change will make my life better. I can't "Change" to have more money, I can't "Change" to have my old life back, I can't "Change" to have my friend back, I can't "Change" to not live where I live. So, nothing I can 'Change" has anything to do with my happiness. I can change my socks, I can change my shirt, I can change my haircut, but NONE of those things has any ability whatsoever to make me a happier person in the long term.

          • hobbesiean says:

            Also, since you seem to be new here, the ONLY way I could have done anything at all to keep my ex from leaving would have been to have become a drug dealer/addict and started to supply her with pills. I strongly resent you suggesting I had ANY responsibility for the breakup.

            one day, everything was fine, we held hands, it was just another day.. the next I'm completely blindsided by her telling me they couldn't be with me anymore because the addiction needed to be fed and she was out of money and needed to be able to have sex with her dealer guilt free which required breaking up with me… Unless you're suggesting I should have given her the money to buy the drugs? Or perhaps that I should have agreed to an open relationship, just me, her and her dealer? Who, by the by, turns out wasn't a big proponent of safe sex.

            Do you have any idea how fucked up that whole "oh dur dur you just don't take personal responsibility" bullshit is when applied to my situation? I suppose I had a share of "Responsibility" when I got laid off? Clearly if I'd just had more personal responsibility I wouldn't have been?

          • **Do you have any idea how fucked up that whole "oh dur dur you just don't take personal responsibility" bullshit is when applied to my situation?**

            Not really, no. It may not be your "fault" your ex- was a drug addict and dumped you for her dealer, but if you really think about it, I'm sure there were red flags you chose to ignore from day one. The lesson to learn there is to read and respond to red flags sooner so you dump toxic people before you're in too deep.

            Addicts are especially poisonous people to be around and give your heart to. They likely honestly don't remember half the shitty things they did to you. I'm guessing that in your relationship you were the "white knight" who wanted to keep her safe and solve all her problems, and that it made you feel needed and important. Because that is codependence, and that is just the way relationships work with addicts (been there, done that, bought the T-shirt, washed my car with it, etc.).

          • hobbesiean says:

            I would never have dumped her regardless of the red flags, I was in a situation I was comfortable in, with a person I liked, why would I ruin it? on purpose no less? I mean, that's the thing I don't get about this whole article.. no guy who has trouble dating is ever going to dump any woman regardless of how bad she treats him. If he does, he's an idiot, cause he's still going to have all the same problems afterwards.. the universe threw him a bone, don't give it up just cause it's not perfect..

          • So, you enjoy being "blindsided" by toxic people? Then keep on acting like red flags are meaningless, I guess. I say it's better to be alone, myself. I went through an angry, no-trusting phase myself, now I have a pleasant FWB arrangement as I sort life stuff out.

            It seems like you still idolize her and haven't really processed what happened. What did you like about her? You really think someone who'd dump you for a drug dealer is someone you could build a healthy relationship with, "if only"?

            In other forums, I'd say, "good God, man, didn't you work through this idolizing crazy girl drama bullshit in your 20s?" Yet most people here are in their 20s (yet most give you more or less the same advice I do, so).

          • I definitely don't think you're responsible for what happened with your ex. But, I don't think it makes any sense for a person who's had trouble dating to assume that the first person who'll date them is the best person they can get. Really, that's completely illogical at all, unless you think people learn nothing through practice and experience (like… how to navigate relationships better, which will make you a more appealing partner and expand your options). I mean… Even you aren't doing that. Your ex-fiance wasn't your first relationship. From what I've gathered, before things went wrong, you were happier with her than you were with your first gf. Isn't that proof that you're not always going to have the exact same relationship? That your next relationship could also be better than the last?

            If you'd taken your own advice and "stayed in the relationship" with your first gf after she left, then you'd never have had the second relationship in the first place.

            Also, as I've pointed out before, many people are happier being single than being with a partner who's untrustworthy/manipulative/abusive/insert major negative quality here. How are those people "idiots" for breaking up with someone who makes them less happy than being without that person? If you're happier with anyone than with no one, fine, but it's really harmful to generalize that to everyone else. You're basically saying nothing a partner can do to anyone is worse than not having a partner.

          • hobbesiean says:

            Sorry, I can't fathom how anyone could be happy alone, I mean, if they are I'm happy for them I truly am and i wish they could bottle whatever it is that allows them to be that way.. cause I've been miserable every single night that I've slept alone for the last year, and I don't think I'm ever going to get over her.

            My first relationship never even made it as far as "i love you's" being exchanged.. we had barely even agreed to become exclusive and a couple.. she used me for a quick jealous score to piss her boyfriend off who had just dumped her "oh see, look how fast I can get a replacement".. type deal.. I have a hard time even calling it a relationship at this point.

            Compared to the second one.. I thought me and her were going to be together forever. And for a while it really felt like that. It's difficult for me to explain.. because while I don't think I'm the only one to ever experience this.. she was my best friend BEFORE we became a couple. I already loved her more than any other human being on the planet, before we were "in love".. for the 3 years that I knew her, she was sober for 2 of them, and working her ass off to make something of herself.. and goddamnit that was attractive to have as a friend and as a lover. 99% of the time I was with her, there were no red flags, we fought over stupid shit, we made up, we cuddled and got over it and compromised and I took her to school in the morning before going to school myself, then I took her to work after the stress of school got to be too much for her.. and then.. BAM all gone. practically overnight. it was a 2 week period where she went from telling me I was the love of her life and how she wanted to marry me to suddenly being too needy and we needed space apart.. all cause of that guy. If he hadn't have come back into the picture, I would be willing to bet (and for anyone who has read anything I have ever said here, this means I think it's a sure thing) what little money i have left in my savings that me and her would still be together right now.

          • I understand why she still means so much to you, and how hard it's been to lose that.

            But you do realize there are relationships where one partner is emotionally and/or physically hurting the other person on a regular basis, right? That it can be not about being happy alone but being miserable with a person and just mildly unhappy without them. Those people aren't idiots for getting out just because they don't enjoy being alone either.

          • hobbesiean says:

            Eh, okay, if they get out over physical abuse I guess okay.. they aren't idiots.. I mean.. I'd stay.. but that's more because I'd rather have the crap beat out of me nightly than have to go to the trouble of looking for anyone else.

            About the only thing I hate more than dating is the dentist.

          • I just want to say I still feel really uncomfortable with the way you seem to be downplaying abuse. As if someone "having the crap beat out of" them every night is better than being alone (or going to the dentist). You clearly have never actually been abused and have no idea how awful it can be, so please stop talking as if you do know and can make accurate statements about what would be more "trouble" and so on. I'm sure there are people reading this who have been physically abused, and it's really insensitive to them to suggest it's comparable to the stress of dating or the annoyance of a trip to the dentist, or that difficulties finding a partner are a problem of the same severity as someone experiencing constant abuse.

            And please, please do not respond to this repeating those ideas. If that's all you can say about it, I'm totally okay with you not responding to this comment.

          • hobbesiean says:

            You're the one who brought it up in the first place, now you're telling me not to talk about it? Which do you want?

          • Technically…

            You are the one who brought up the idea that anything is better than being alone. Just because you didn't specifically say "abuse" was included in "anything" doesn't mean that implication wasn't obviously there. I was already uncomfortable just with you saying that, and I was hoping that by pointing out explicitly that "abuse" is part of "anything" you'd realize how problematic it was to say things like that.

            And…

            I'm not telling you not to talk about abuse, I'm asking you not to talk about it in a way that's clearly uninformed and insensitive. Notice that I didn't ask you not to respond, only not to respond by saying the exact same things I've already tried to explain to you are hurtful. If you really can't think of anything to say other than "well, other people might not want that, but I think it'd be better than nothing", that's your lack of thought and consideration, not mine.

          • hobbesiean says:

            Fair enough.

          • Well, hey, at least you're being authentic and not that, "Screw personality, looks are all that matters" dude from upthread.

            You're still thinking she's perfect and that everything that went wrong is all this dude's fault, though, which is never the case. (Why was school "too stressful" for her? I'm smelling a possible red flag).

            You absolutely had a shitty experience and had your trust ripped to shreds by your (then) best friend, but you're not making it any easier to move on by putting her on a pedestal so long after the fact. To be blunt, you're practically glorifying in staying stuck and victimizing yourself (again, speaking as someone who's been there and had people throw the exact same accusations at me, and worse).

            Anyway, I wish you well and hope you share this stuff in therapy. Also, what Mel said x1000 about how it's not so much I'm "happy" alone, as that I'm relatively content and "Okay." And when I think about some of the terrible relationships I've been in, I think "there but for the grace of God.." When I think about the absence of bullshit I used to put up with I suddenly feel like my life fucking rocks. It's like being held hostage and kissing the ground upon your return home. The ground that used to seem so plain and ordinary.

          • hobbesiean says:

            the dream of her is better than the reality of being alone. I dunno what else to say after that.

          • thepaleking71 says:

            Dude, you're kind of being an asshole here. I have to actually side with Hobbesian here. If you really were truly loved and lived with an addict, you'd show a bit more empathy and understanding. There's definitely some shit that Hobbesian needs work through (that he kind of refuses to do), but to chalk it all up to co-dependence and then end your message with a brag about how awesome you are to have gotten over it just makes you another internet asshole.

          • thepaleking71 says:

            Uggh, terrible grammar. Meant to say "if you really truly loved…"

          • Socio-economic background is very important in relationships, I find your critique of hobbesian for his tatement of the college student vs the single mother ridiculous.

          • hobbesiean says:

            Socio-Economic status is actually one of the single biggest factors in successful long term relationships, or indeed in relationships forming in the first place, since it largely determines what sorts of people you are able to interact with on a daily basis and thus largely determines your pool for selecting mates.

            While Disney would have you believe that princes are all the time marrying scullary girls it really doesn't happen all that often.. that sort of hypergamy isn't nearly as pernicious or socially possible as it is presented by the media. Middle Class people might occasionally marry Working Class people.. and upper class people might occasionally marry upper-middle-class people.. the chances of an Upper class person marrying a working class person, or a lower class person are extremely thin.. especially if the working/lower class person is the guy. I'm not saying it doesn't happen at all.. but I'm positive it's extremely rare.

            I might eventually make it into the middle class once I've finished College, but as it is right now I'm still Lower Class, which means that in order for me to find a partner which I would have the most in common with I have to look for Lower class, or working class women, which seems to rule out a HUGE number of the women at my school, who overwhelmingly seem to come from very entitled upper middle class, or upper class country club set backgrounds.

            Yet at the same time, it is quite rare for a lower class, or working class woman not to have already either had kids, or been married. I would accept a divorcee so long as she had no kids with her previous partner, but I will never under any circumstances accept even partial financial responsibility for someone elses children.

          • hobbesiean says:

            I should also like to add, Hypergamy is not nearly as widespread or pernicious as the MRA and PUA groups would have you believe either. Like tends to marry like, and that extends to personalities as well as family tax bracket.

          • I agree about social class being a big indicator for successful relationships of a personal naturenature. I find that it is the class you grew up in, rather than current SES, that predicts my ability to get to be anything other than acquaintances with people. It seems to even trump ethnicity and country of birth. Even if I am theoretically upper middle class now based on income, I relate best with people that came up hard.

          • hobbesiean says:

            That's exactly it.

          • Socio-economic background =/= beauty
            he said: "22 year old college student = more attractive than a 28 year old single mother of 3"
            I said: "Because either you're confusing compatible lifestyles with beauty […]"

            Claiming somebody with a different lifestyle is "unattractive" or "ugly" instead of simply incompatible makes you sound like a massive knob end. And this is what dating is largely about: communicating what you think in a proper way. If somebody told me they didn't want to date a mother of 3, I'd be perfectly understanding – hey, not everybody's into kids! But if someone prattled on about how a 22 y.o. college student is more ATTRACTIVE than a 28 y.o., I'd just flat out leave the date.

            FFS people, others can only hear what you say, not what you think! Think about how you're coming off. Regardless of how valid your point may be, if you come off reeking of bitterness and entitlement, people are just going to avoid you. And this is what I see on this site all the time: people come here lamenting how their dating life is crappy due to *unknown reasons*, and then eventually their comments become more bitter or whiny or full of self-pity or entitled or flat out troll-y.

            Happy people want company, unhappy people want an audience. And no normal person is going to settle for being an extra in the epic drama that is you self-absorbed life.

            (most of this comment is not about hobbesian, but just human nature in general)

          • hobbesiean says:

            well yeah I can see why you would leave a date under those conditions.. but I'd personally never talk about that kind of thing on a date.. since the obviously if I was on a date with a person I'd already consider them attractive enough to date.

          • This is what I'm trying to point out: you are so involved in what you expect/like/tolerate in a partner, that you're not thinking about what they might expect/like/tolerate from you. Let's say your on a 3rd date with an attractive girl and you mention that, in general, "22 y.o. students are more attractive then 28 y.o. mothers". She'd probably drop your ass like a hot potato (regardless of how compatible you are) thinking you'll leave her the moment she's over 25. Seriously, at this point I wonder if it's ever occurred to you that your dream girl might not like you back.

            You see your search for a partner as some kind of personal battle with the universe. "I've changed all I'm going to change, Universe, now take it or leave it!" And the universe is like "Whatevs, it's not like you being forever alone affects me in the slightest lol. Laters!"

            You've talked about going to therapy and it not working – well my pompous ass is going to give you a life-changing piece of advice completely free:
            THE UNIVERSE IS NOT YOUR ENEMY.
            So you live in a town populated by rednecks. But they don't owe you anything – they don't owe you to be smarter or prettier or less religious or whatever for you to consider them datable. They're not being rednecks just to piss you off. Your situation is unfortunate, but it's not their fault.

            This is only the first step but it's the most important one because it stops the universe being the big baddy, and revolving around you. As a next step you might want to consider what you have to offer to a future partner or what their impression of you might be. But one step at a time.

          • hobbesiean says:

            Sorry, the universe is my enemy.

          • Robjection says:

            Sorry, the universe is not some sentient being with its own thoughts and desires. It's nothing more than a collection of objects and creatures and phenomena. I'm fairly certain that disqualifies it from being anyone's enemy.

          • hobbesiean says:

            I don't see it that way.

          • Robjection says:

            Then the way you see it is factually incorrect. If you're OK with being both wrong and miserable for the sake of not changing, then go on with your bad self and, to put it bluntly (since being gentle doesn't seem to do anything), shut the fuck up. Otherwise …

          • hobbesiean says:

            Oh well, I don't see my view of the universe as inherently malicious as being any more or less factually incorrect than any other viewpoint.

            I mean, unless you're like a dogmatic atheist body theorist in which case I have nothing in common with your view of the world anyway.

          • Robjection says:

            Sentience is something that has to be conclusively proven – in fact, this is true of all qualities. It takes more than a single being's life experiences to conclusively prove the sentience – or indeed the insert quality here – of anything. Therefore, unless you have some evidence you'd like to present, your view of the universe is more factually incorrect than the view that the universe is not sentient.

            So if you're still not factually correct and your view still leads to you being miserable, then your view of the universe does not help you, nor would it help anyone else if they decided to adopt it. If you want to cling on to that belief, I can't stop you. It does mean, however, that nobody can ever help you with your problems, as that requires you to be willing to adapt (or change if you will), and a belief that the universe is consciously hostile towards you specifically does not lend itself to that willingness unless you consider your adaptions/changes to be your way of fighting against or surviving in the universe.

            If you're OK with being in your current situation for the rest of your life, know that the people here will almost certainly keep giving you the kinds of messages you've been getting from them so far, whether the messages come in the articles or in the comments, and whether their message is actually directed at you or not. In that sense, things will stay the same, which is what you seem to want more than both happiness and being right. So I retract my earlier "shut the fuck up" and suggest that, no matter how many times we argue with you, you should not stop until the day you literally cannot continue.

            It's either that, or change. Or rely on things to change in just the right way for you without you having to change a bit, but that's too unlikely to even warrant serious consideration.

          • hobbesiean says:

            Nobody is twisting your arm and making you ask me questions you already know you won't like the answers to. This has become a theological debate, and I have no obligation to defend what are effectively my spiritual beliefs to you.

            of course, maybe it's your fate to ask me those questions, just as it's mine to be miserable. Sucks to be us I guess.

          • A single 22 year old college student IS more attractive (as a dating prospect) than a 28 year old mother of three for most single men. That is NOT a sign of bitterness, I don't know where this stupid tangent about happy vs unhappy people came from.

            I don't even want children, ever (inb4 jokes about how that's best), so I would avoid a woman of any age who had children or who wanted to have children.

            FYI, you might want to take your own advice and not be so quick to jump to your own bitter conclusions.

          • Also a person's socioeconomic background does add or detract from their attractiveness, that's just reality, I'm sorry it's not pretty and it's not PC but better to view the painful truth than an ego-stroking lie.

          • I think you're issue here is with the English language – damn you words, and your defined meanings! Also, I have no idea where you sensed bitterness teeheehee :D

          • hobbesiean says:

            See, I kinda see what he's saying since I kinda agree with it.. kinda.

            Basically like.. you could take your hypothetical '10' to mean whatever you consider the most beautiful, perfect, ideal physical specimen of womanhood you've ever seen. Okay, so you have your '10'. Now. you find out your '10' has 2 kids from 2 different fathers.. well she just plummeted down to a 2 or 3 at best. Nothing physically has changed about her.. she's still the most gorgeous perfect looking woman you've ever seen.. but she's a 2 cause she has kids. Then say you find a hypothetical '7', she's not as perfect as your '10'.. but she doesn't have kids.. that means she stays a '7'… or maybe even goes up to an 8 or 9 depending on what her opinion of having kids is in Chuck's case. For me, I want them, eventually, which is another reason why a 22 year old is more attractive than a 28 year old.

            It isn't that I'm trying to say I don't want the 28 year old to be happy, or to have a family, I know at least that Marty here very much seems to want that.. but at least for me in my current situation financially I'd be signing up for a REALLY frustrating relationship if I got together with a 28 or 29 year old woman who wanted kids before 35.. I may not even be done with school by the time I'm 35, let alone be in a financial position to have kids. that sucks, but I can hardly be blamed for it, I didn't break the economy.

            Does that explain my use of "attractive" at all? Yes, her looks are very important to the grand scheme of things.. since they make the difference between sexual and platonic attraction.. but more than just her looks go into making her attractive.

            if just being good looking was all it took to get dates, i wouldn't have so many problems…

          • And that's fine, just be very careful when using the word "beauty" and "attractiveness" as in this context they're not really interchangeable. I'm not arguing about what you think but about how you express it, and the reason so many people had a knee-jerk reaction to your statement is because it sounded more like "I want a 22 y.o. student instead of a 28 y.o. which is practically a grandma", instead of a simple "i don't want to be with a woman with children", which I think nobody would (or should) argue over. First impressions are important for dating, and people will seldom give you a second chance to go into lengthy explanations. No need to sound like a jerk if you're not one.

            As for Chucky, he's here to on a personal mission to shine the light of cold hard truth through our fog of political correctness, so I can't really take him too seriously sometimes :D

          • hobbesiean says:

            As far as I've been able to figure, the jerkier I can act and sound the further ahead in life I'm going to get.

            It's so far turned out to be true, if I act like me and ask politely nothing happens, if I'm loud and confrontational stuff miraculously gets done..

          • I think the thing to ask yourself is who you are getting somewhere with. If someone is a jerk, they're likely to attract jerks, get somewhere with jerks, and end up in a community full of jerks … hmmm. Doesn't sound like a great solution to me.

          • hobbesiean says:

            but if all the important people you need to get some place with are jerks.. then it's worth it right?

          • I can see it being worth it in small doses for things that you really need – sometimes jerks have power over you and you've got to do what you have to to survive.

            But if you find you need to compromise your values in major ways or on a regular basis, I think it's worth your while to seek out places where jerks are less dominant, find alternate ways of dealing with jerks… or if you can't seem to do either no matter how you try, maybe question whether your idea of what makes someone a jerk is actually reasonable, or if there might be something that you think is part of your values that is actually just stubbornness or assumptions.

          • Oohhh, I get what you're saying now. Your initial post on this made it seem like you were talking about appearance only, so it sounded like you were saying that your only criteria for dating was appearance and that 28-yr-olds and women with children are withered and ugly, not that you're less attracted to them because they don't meet your non appearance-based requirements.

          • Hobbessian not being attracted to the single mother because she doesn't meet his non-appearance standards was PAINFULLY obvious from his original post on the matter.

          • The one making up their own meanings for words is you, just saiyan.

          • lol. I am almost 28, my sister is almost 22 and in college. We are both attractive, but shit, I think most of the guys who find me attractive would not find her attractive and vice versa. Why? Well, in part because we look different, but also because we ARE different. The guys who are into me like me because I can discuss politics and philosophy with them and will get up and sing karaoke with them, maybe go to a Mountain Goats concert with them. Guys who like my sister like her because she's funny and knows where the fun parties are, and speaks French….basically because she's awesome in other ways.
            Let's make a comparison (apologies to those not up on US politics). Let's take Sidney Leathers http://blurbrain.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/07/S… and Wendy Davis http://www.rawstory.com/rs/wp-content/uploads/201… . Sidney Leathers, in addition to be kind of a deplorable seeming person, is not particularly attractive according to a lot of people. Wendy Davis, on the other hand, is incredibly admirable (she put herself through college and law school while being a single mom), smart, and really a political badass, AND really quite attractive and put together for 50 year old woman. Seriously, people are different and attractive in all kinds of different ways.

  14. The values thing is a killer… i'm a meat eater, and lots of girls in my dating pool are committed vegetarians and vegans

    • hobbesiean says:

      This is also something that I've come across. If they aren't Religious fanatics or single moms, they are dogmatic athiest vegans.

  15. Ok, so I've worked out what skeeves me out about the number system.
    "She's a total 10." – immediately, I know what you're talking about. It might make me side eye you a little, mainly because my social circle rarely, if ever, talks about people's physical apparence (the closest we come is clothes, and even then, it tends to be more to the lines of armour), but I get what you mean.
    "He's a total 10." Would NOT get the same gut-reaction understanding. After a couple of seconds, I'd figure out what you'd mean, but my first instinctive reaction is 'in what? Sense of humour, chilled-outed-ness, FPS gaming stats, shadowrun 3.5 character generation ability, what are we talking about?' It's only after a good few seconds the jump is made to 'oooooh, you mean his looks!'

    *That's* the bit that knee jerks me. With women, it's so common we're boiled down just our appearence that my brain goes there immediately. With men, they are rarely that objectified, so my brain automatically tries to drag in other facets or references that might be being made, because it's SO unused to referring to men solely by their appearence.

    Where you'd go from here, I've got no idea. Depends on whether you prize equality over things being just and good. Because being just and good means you'd stop reducing women to their appearence – not saying ignore it entirely, but acknowledge it's one factor among many like with men, rather than the be all and end all – and that's something that's so big it's well nigh impossible for any one generation to accomplish. If you were shooting for equality, however, you'd just need to start objectifying men at the same rate women are. Which is probably easier, but still doesn't sit right with me.

Trackbacks

  1. […] feel when you’re with her is ultimately going to mean far more than what’s on the surface. A 101 who makes you miserable is ultimately less desirable than a  7 who makes you feel like the world […]