Being flat-chested and dating

[Puddincup]

I was at dinner last night with a guy friend of mine and we got to talking about boobs. He thought they were boring in comparison to other parts of a woman. He said it didn't matter to him and he thought probably it didn't matter to a lot of guys.

 

I got other parts of my body to be insecure about so my small boobs are usually the last thing I worry about.

[midnightrambler]

fact:

 

sit at a bar with a table of guys and the number one thing they will comment on----chest size of a dame.....to get a butt compliment it has to be a stunner, breastes on the other hand has less of a perfection quality to be admired

[MandyJade]

Hey there.

I just want you to know that I am sure you are a beautiful girl, and there are some down sides to having larger breasts too!

Sometimes I wish mine were smaller so I could run easier, and there are stretch marks, and sometime they are just in the way.

Confidence is the coolest accessory!

Take care.

[Malakh]

While this is nice to read in an online forum this is not the case in the real world TOV. It all boils down to whether the person is attracted to you or not. If guy A is not attracted to a woman because her breasts are small then there is nothing she can do about it. He is not attracted. Period. The why does not matter any more.

 

I have had these type of experiences where women have ruled me out because I did not have certain physical traits. And when I felt it was unfair I was told right here in ENA that it is a matter of preference. So in that way Man A is not shallow but it is just that he has a preference for women with nice breasts. I know it SUCKS to hear this. I know it sounds so unfair when all our personality and character and everything else is rejected because we do not have a physical trait. I used to be frustrated about it but have come to accept it as the reality. So yea, if a girl rejects a wonderful, confident, amazing guy because he is not tall enough for her then she has a preference.

[Puddincup]

I think those physical things (boobs, pecs, height, whatever) are "nice to haves" but not truly important in the relationship. But this is my perspective and I've been out with guys who felt that they were "necessities". Is it shallow? Whose to say?

[FloraDora]

First of all....can I just say that it bugs me when people use "nice" as a euphemism for "bigger" when referring to breasts? I have friends that have "nice" breasts, meaning they are symetrical, perky, proportionate, and full, of all sizes. Some of friends have droopy, lopsided, odd looking breasts too, and those are both large and small. The larger ones just tend to look better with the proper bra and clothes.

 

That said.....I think it is funny how men are so sensitive about their penis size, but are not afraid to judge or make insenstive comments on women's boobs. A couple of my exes have given me the "well, obviously I would prefer it if you had bigger breasts, but I am willing to accept you the way you are because I like you" speech a couple of times. When they asked my opinions on their penis size, and I honestly told them that I preferred them longer, or with more girth....hello impotence and incessent questioning of the relative penis size of everyone I have ever slept with. I have since learned to keep my mouth shut about such things.

 

I get the whole thing about a preference vs dealtbreaker though. I have physical attributes that I tend to find more attractive, but I dont' have any appearance based dealbreakers-height included.

[monkeysblood]

Firstly, don't wear padding - it looks wrong.

 

Secondly, accept the fact that you're flat, and move on. I'm sure you have really small and nice bum! Also, don't try and cover your chest with scarves - you can do that, but only for so long.

 

Just for us, and for anyone else reading this, I want you to list any problems that you think men with have with your boobs, then we can try and address them.

[FloraDora]

I pretty much have to wear padding unless I want to buy shirts that are made for children. I don't wear padding if I am just wearing a t-shirt, sweater, etc....but for work shirts, scoop necked blouses, the clothes are cut with the assumption that women have breasts. If I don't wear padding, the chest are hangs down and does not fit. If something is really nice I will pay to have it tailored, but I can't afford to to this with all of my clothing.

 

I don't wear scarves. I do have a cute butt, if I say so myself!! The problem is, I am not getting any younger, and it gets less cute each year. That is one of the reasons I debated getting implants-though I quickly decided against it.

[HouseKitten]

fact:

 

sit at a bar with a table of guys and the number one thing they will comment on----chest size of a dame.....to get a butt compliment it has to be a stunner, breastes on the other hand has less of a perfection quality to be admired

 

To be fair, a butt is far harder to get a good look at. It's lower down, which means a glance is normally more obvious, and if a girl is sitting then it's completely off the radar. But breasts! They just bounce around up top all day for anyone to notice.

 

To add to the shallow vs not shallow debate, I think although it'd be nice if it were possible for everyone to be attracted to all kinds of heights and sizes, everyone isn't. I'm not attracted to men who are shorter than me. If I met a short guy I like to think I'd give him a fair chance but even if he was a good guy, that physical attraction wouldn't be the same. Why lie about it? Okay, it's not awesome, but it's human to have preferences and you can't change someone's by telling them they're bad for having a preference. You have to accept yourself for who you are, and accept that no one is attractive to everyone. But additionally, everyone is attractive to someone

[Lucius]

The word "shallow" sure gets thrown around a lot. There's a lot of arrogance to labeling someone shallow, IMO. It assumes that the criteria the labeler him or herself uses to assess potential partners is somehow inherently superior, rather than merely being different - rather than merely being suited to their OWN needs and desires. Ironically, I think the word itself is often used in a very superficial and judgmental way. It is valuable to accept that what strikes me as trivial may well be important to someone else - not because they're "shallow", young, or childish; but because they're different, and thus have different desires, attractions, and pursuits.

 

I think that, ultimately, people just want to be attracted to their partner. For some people, intellectual or emotional attraction carries great weight. Not because they're superior as a human being, but because they're built that way. Because nature or experience has rendered them so. The opposite is also true. For some people physical attraction and chemistry have that clout - that impact. Not because they're inferior as a human being, but because they too are built that way. Most of us, I would hazard, lie somewhere between those poles - and in fact can oscillate between them. It's not, IMO, a dichotomy of "deep" vs "shallow" - it's not moral based, and it's not static. It's personal, and it's more complicated than a hasty, scornful judgment can adequately capture.

 

With that said, OP, I do echo the advice of those posters who have reminded you that there are many, many men out there who would not find your perceived "flaw" as a flaw at all - for them it would be just what they're looking for. For them very small breasts would be hot - not something they'd "overlook" - a quality in itself. Such men are not as rare as you might think.

 

Ultimately, IMO, it's a far better thing to find those who love us for who we are, who are attracted to us for who we are - because we mesh naturally and organically - than it is to berate those who don't dig us until they "come around"; until they stop "being shallow". It's not the job of everyone around us to validate our bodies/lives/opinions by adapting their views to suit ourselves.

 

My two cents.

[FloraDora]

I agree! Well said! I remember not believing that any men were actually attracted to small boobs and thinking that those who said they were were lying to make me feel better. That was before I found one of my ex-boyfriends porn stashes on his computer and realized that most of it featured small boobed women-ha!

 

That said....I generally find really skinny guys with attractive. However, if I met a muscular guy who was "perfect for me" in everyother way I would still date him. Maybe women are more flexible with this those as we are more emotionally and less physically aroused? I am not insulting men by saying this, but making a statement based on biology.

[monkeysblood]

Just got some things to read:

 

link removed

 

link removed

 

link removed

 

link removed

[Malakh]

I agree! Well said! I remember not believing that any men were actually attracted to small boobs and thinking that those who said they were were lying to make me feel better. That was before I found one of my ex-boyfriends porn stashes on his computer and realized that most of it featured small boobed women-ha!

 

That said....I generally find really skinny guys with attractive. However, if I met a muscular guy who was "perfect for me" in everyother way I would still date him. Maybe women are more flexible with this those as we are more emotionally and less physically aroused? I am not insulting men by saying this, but making a statement based on biology.

 

I also do not mind a woman with small breasts. I have been attracted to many many women that were petite and had small breasts. Some of them were almost flat-chested but I still found them attractive.

 

One of the women that I truly liked a lot had very small breasts. But she turned me down because I was not tall (I am only 5'7")

[FloraDora]

I am 30.

 

And no pictures!!! ha ha. With my face covered you'd probably mistake me for a boy anyways

[Organs]

I am 30.

 

And no pictures!!! ha ha. With my face covered you'd probably mistake me for a boy anyways

 

I love girls with short hair! I love long hair, too, but shorter hair styles have so much potential for personality!

[tiredofvampires]

While this is nice to read in an online forum this is not the case in the real world TOV.

 

I am basing my comments and opinions on what I have encountered in the real world. My own relationships, and those of my friends and associates. What I report or express here online is merely an extension of what I see working and not working so well in "the real world".

 

It all boils down to whether the person is attracted to you or not. If guy A is not attracted to a woman because her breasts are small then there is nothing she can do about it. He is not attracted. Period. The why does not matter any more.

 

I have had these type of experiences where women have ruled me out because I did not have certain physical traits. And when I felt it was unfair I was told right here in ENA that it is a matter of preference.

 

The word "shallow" sure gets thrown around a lot. There's a lot of arrogance to labeling someone shallow, IMO. It assumes that the criteria the labeler him or herself uses to assess potential partners is somehow inherently superior, rather than merely being different - rather than merely being suited to their OWN needs and desires. Ironically, I think the word itself is often used in a very superficial and judgmental way. It is valuable to accept that what strikes me as trivial may well be important to someone else - not because they're "shallow", young, or childish; but because they're different, and thus have different desires, attractions, and pursuits.

 

I think that, ultimately, people just want to be attracted to their partner. For some people, intellectual or emotional attraction carries great weight. Not because they're superior as a human being, but because they're built that way. Because nature or experience has rendered them so. The opposite is also true. For some people physical attraction and chemistry have that clout - that impact. Not because they're inferior as a human being, but because they too are built that way. Most of us, I would hazard, lie somewhere between those poles - and in fact can oscillate between them. It's not, IMO, a dichotomy of "deep" vs "shallow" - it's not moral based, and it's not static. It's personal, and it's more complicated than a hasty, scornful judgment can adequately capture.

 

I, of all people, am someone who holds "whatever floats your boat" and to "each their own" to be pretty central guiding philosophies. I really am in no position to sit in judgment about the "why" of someone's else's preference. And, I don't consider my preferences or gauges "morally superior" in any way to someone else's preferences. This is not a moral issue.

 

I do not believe I'm a better human being if I have some preference (or need) and another person has another.

 

I have also said numerous times on this board that anyone has a "right" to like anything.

 

Do I judge people's preferences? Only in the sense that I evaluate them as according to my value system. So it's in the end, subjective. It's like saying, "Here is one person who values being open. Here is another who values keeping to themselves. Who is right?" It's not about right or wrong. It's about what tends to work out better in a relationship.

 

So for instance, I am valuing intellectual rapport and emotional connection in a relationship as being paramount. Why? It's because these qualities have more longevity, and I value longevity more than someone else might, while in the selection process. So I'm choosing on that basis, in large measure. When I grow old with someone, their body and nearly all my preferences about it will have changed drastically. This is not an opinion, this is a fact. Some parts will have sunken, others shrunken, some will have ceased to work, changed color or even disappeared. The body is a drastically alterable machine, and it is a vessel for the mind, soul and spirit. So in old age, I may lose my partner's body as I once knew it (tight small this, big strong that, pert this, lean that), but I will still be with THEM. Their mind, which is the last thing (I hope) we will be sharing, if we aren't lucky enough to be able to share physically the same way we were when we were younger. So for me, it's a question of what am I banking on here. Where am I placing my values. Feel free to place your bets where you place them. And I'll feel free to call that a shaky bet. I'm placing my values on their character and their mind, and the quality of their heart, because it is my experience IN REAL LIFE that often, when you find someone with those all lined up in a fashion to be good for you, it's not going to necessarily come tied up in a nice neat bow in a box, made to order and custom-designed with the dark brown eyes, the long dark hair, the slim-muscular, 5'10"-6'2", graceful-yet-strong hands, and prominent Adam's Apple features that would be my PREFERRED physical model.

 

To say I'd like these qualities, yes, please! -- makes all the sense in the world. But to say this guy is an amazing person with a good heart, a brilliant mind and a beautiful soul, but oh dear me, HIS EYES ARE BLUE or HE'S 2 INCHES SHORTER THAN ME so this can't work now, that to me -- TO ME -- is placing some very finicky items over some very much bigger items. Once you start to get some perspective about what a crap relationship can do to you, with someone who is physically close to your ideal, some things naturally become less imperative, like shoulder girth. I have found in my life that you're very lucky to find someone who will treat you well, and also have interests and differences in the right quantities, and be compatible with your lifestyle, and be someone who's mannerisms don't drive you insane, and the sum total of this observation is that if you take one trait, like height or boobs, at the expense of all the other qualities this person may possess -- then wow, you are really throwing away an entire bushel of apples because one of them has one dent in it.

 

People have a right to prioritize in this manner, but good luck with having relationships that work, if you're picking and choosing by that criteria. This is an experience-based statement. If you put eye color or boob size over other things that make a relationship work or not work, that is certainly your prerogative, but I don't think it's errant of me to point out that the truth is, you're going to have a really hard time establishing a sound relationship on that basis. If you're lucky enough to find someone with your ideal criteria, they just cross your path and you happen to click, then great. But if you're knocking people off your list who might otherwise be compatible, loving and stable partners, only they don't have this or that particular physical trait, then that really will limit you (and will be the bane of your future happiness). And that's not a moral indictment, that's just a fact of reality you'll be facing. And it does you as much a disservice as the people you're rejecting, ironically.

If you're picking on this basis, down the road, you'll be facing some marital discord when your bodies change, if that was the foundational criteria. If a man marries a woman for her pert yet ample boobs, and then they later sag...does he get a divorce? Or cheat, since he's no longer attracted to her, because this preference is no longer being satisfied by his wife? This creates a major problem then, this *simple* preference, does it not?

 

While I do think that everyone determines what's most important to them, as it should be, some things are a worse gamble than others for their importance, by the nature of their superficiality and transience.

 

I don't think it makes me self-righteous or "superior" that I would acknowledge this, and steer away from someone who judges my boob shape to be a dealbreaker, thinking, "This person is looking at this superficial attribute in a manner that isn't proportional to me a whole unit."

 

Let me put it this way: I'm GRATEFUL (not haughty) that I'm the sort of person who does not NEED a guy to be tall even if I would PREFER it, if I was picking qualities out of the sky. Because I am freer than the woman who NEEDS it. I also feel LUCKY (not haughty) that the guy I get with some day will not count my boob size/shape as a NEED, because it will make me feel his love to be on a deeper level for me. I'm grateful I don't have certain needs like this that are out of my control, and will be grateful for the man who won't have them, either. Having such preferences as needs would make dating/mating even suckier for me than it is.

 

And thus, I'm advising the OP and other people with some physical trait that is deemed a deal-breaker to write off those who put so much value on a superficial quality. Let that person go out and seek that superficial quality. God bless them. God bless them to be as superficial as they need to be in their modus operendi -- while you who are shorter or who have smaller boobs, find someone who isn't looking at that superficial quality and making it the be-all-end-all.

 

Or, find someone who adores that specific quality for its own sake.

 

(I should probably add for good measure and the record, that I've turned down various men in my life because I could not get into their physicality, despite them being nice men; and that I need to be with someone who turns me on physically as well as otherwise, just like anyone else.)

 

I've overstated my case, I'm sure. But oh well. That's that, then.

[Malakh]

Thanks for a great post TOV.

 

Just to let you know - I was ruled out because of certain physical traits (in case you assumed that I ruled some one out).

[Lucius]

Do I judge people's preferences? Only in the sense that I evaluate them as according to my value system. So it's in the end, subjective. It's like saying, "Here is one person who values being open. Here is another who values keeping to themselves. Who is right?" It's not about right or wrong. It's about what tends to work out better in a relationship.

 

I think that's my problem with the liberal use of the word (or judgment) "shallow" that I so often see here. It's easy to take our own value system and, without even intending to, misapply it to others in the form of negative judgment. No-one wants to be considered depth-less; particularly for merely pursuing what one likes - with greater or lesser degrees of avidity.

 

Like you, I place a very high value on intellectual and emotional connection - to the extent that suggesting this or that physical trait (or lack thereof) might be an instant "deal-breaker" for me would be preposterous. But that does not mean that I feel those for whom this IS important are somehow lacking in depth - as a person, as a partner, or as a lover. Because depth is measured in countless ways - not just in the ways that I myself operate.

 

The word, IMO, is clumsy, laden with assumptions, and so often misapplied. And it was this word, and it's use, that I took issue with - not you. Please don't take my view personally, ToV - you know I don't consider you to be "self righteous" in any way. It was more my intention to address the very idea of this kind of projection we can all engage in - where, on some level, we fall into a judgment of others based on our own experiences and proclivities alone (rather than respecting that there are many lessons, many paths, and many kinds of depth).

[tiredofvampires]

Like you, I place a very high value on intellectual and emotional connection - to the extent that suggesting this or that physical trait (or lack thereof) might be an instant "deal-breaker" for me would be preposterous. But that does not mean that I feel those for whom this IS important are somehow lacking in depth - as a person, as a partner, or as a lover.

 

So then, if your (prospective) partner/lover was judging someone on the preposterous basis of one trait being a deal-breaker, this would not make you think twice about being their partner/lover? This wouldn't speak to a narrow-mindedness that, in its preposterousness, diminishes their appeal to you as a person with realistic, reasonable and mature priorities?

 

If not, then I salute you, Lucius -- and it's possible I may have found someone in the world here more open-minded than myself, that being a pretty hard to come by thing.

 

I agree that depth is a matter of many variables. But if someone treats a superficial attribute (such as small breasts...and do we agree that a physical attribute IS a superficial attribute of a person?) with the same gravity as a pervasive, character-determining attribute (such as selfishness), the I'd say there is something a little distorted about the scales. This is some sort of indicator about a person and their depth. Maybe it's not the full story. But it's a pretty significant illustration/component. IMHO. (And I have never personally met someone who maintained that level of "pickiness" that also didn't have corresponding bonding and intimacy issues, so there's your trade-off.)

 

Everything we like or don't is subjective.

 

But there is still such a thing as relativity.

 

Oh, I'm not taking it personally. I'm just taking it passionately. You keep me on my toes, boy.

[Lucius]

So then, if your (prospective) partner/lover was judging someone on the preposterous basis of one trait being a deal-breaker, this would not make you think twice about being their partner/lover? This wouldn't speak to a narrow-mindedness that, in its preposterousness, diminishes their appeal to you as a person with realistic, reasonable and mature priorities?

 

Well, no. Because it's only preposterous for me. I wouldn't find it preposterous if she liked any number of things I myself don't prioritize. Of course, if we're not in-synch in ways that are key for me, I won't be too keen to date her - but I won't disdain her either. That would be a function of compatibility, not some elusive ideal. As to the maturity; perhaps. But I'm disinclined to believe that the more someone is like me, the more mature they are. I like to think that there's different ways to be reasonable and mature - and that I'm no more the pinnacle and sole representative of that than are my values. Her attitude, in other words, would indeed diminish her appeal for me - but less because it was immature and shallow, and more because it would not mesh with my personality, values, and needs.

 

I agree that depth is a matter of many variables. But if someone treats a superficial attribute (such as small breasts...and do we agree that a physical attribute IS a superficial attribute of a person?) with the same gravity as a pervasive, character-determining attribute (such as selfishness), the I'd say there is something a little distorted about the scales. This is some sort of indicator about a person and their depth. Maybe it's not the full story. But it's a pretty significant illustration/component. IMHO. (And I have never personally met someone who maintained that level of "pickiness" that also didn't have corresponding bonding and intimacy issues, so there's your trade-off.)

 

I agree that it's superficial for me. I don't agree that it's superficial for everyone. That judgment is one I can only make for myself. I guess I see it like this: we're all a bunch of animals in a vast and colourful menagerie. As a wolf, I'm not going to turn to the turtle and say: "You're too slow! You don't have enough fur! Where's your pack!" I don't measure everyone by my own yardstick. We're all different, and we move through the world driven by different desires - some of which we can later realize were helpful, unhelpful, or necessary at the time. But it's not for me to make that decision or come to that conclusion for other people; after all, who the hell am I? I'm just one animal in a menagerie - no more right or wrong than the turtle sitting next to me.

 

Oh, I'm not taking it personally. I'm just taking it passionately.

 

Excellent.

[tiredofvampires]

Well, no. Because it's only preposterous for me. I wouldn't find it preposterous if she liked any number of things I myself don't prioritize.

 

This brings to mind a discussion I had with my ex (which somehow turned heated) one day, when the subject came up of how attractive tattoos are on women. He told me that they were an instant dealbreaker for him, as they make a woman look cheap and trashy (later, I discovered that he wasn't as absolute as he made out, but I digress.) I don't have tattoos myself, and never will. I generally like skin in its natural, buff state, on a male as well as a female. But I wouldn't rule out a man with tatts, even ugly ones. And I took the position that he was being a little narrow-minded and categorically judging women who had tatts. This stand of his put me off a bit -- I thought jeez, I know it's unsightly at times, but what about the rest of the girl, the person? So this didn't thrill me about him, but it was totally irrelevant to me and us and our relationship in the sense that we weren't gonna deal with that question. So his being preposterous to me in this way was mitigated by the fact that it was not a priority that affected us. His dealbreakers weren't dealbreaking to me, ha.

 

I suppose it's easy for your partner's dealbreakers/priorities not to turn you off as "statements" -- because if your partner is attracted to you, by that token, you've already managed to get through their dealbreaker filter! If they are digging you, you have nothing to quibble about, except the principle of the thing. And that's good for intellectual stimulation, and a bit of cerebral tension...but that's nothing a good hot romp in the sack won't make even better. Ha ha.

 

But if you're out there with a perceived severe disadvantage within the culture (as many women like the OP feels, with her small chest), or shortish height as a man...then the question of your being rejected continually for a single trait then becomes highly relevant. And, the discussion of relative "depth" and "shallowness" in people's criteria for judging a partner (again, that word "relativity" becomes key here) takes on significance.

 

Then I think it makes sense to establish that there are some people you have to reject, and know why. In this case, you'd reject anyone who is taking a physical trait in isolation of the rest, because not only is their taste incompatible with your body, but their assessment is superficially-based.

 

And I guess we'll have to agree to disagree (and we agree on so much, I suppose it's about time! on the term "superficial." I do believe there's some truth to the saying, "Beauty is skin deep" (as I hear the silent chorus of young, disaffected male posters boo'ing me.) There's a reason they have that saying out there still. Because if you cut my left boob off, I'm still me. It's a superficial part of me, just as the skin is on the surface and the intestines are deep inside. Well, values also have strata in my opinion.

 

It doesn't make anyone bad or criminal or even stupid to base their decision on the superficial strata, but that's what they are doing. Hugh Hefner has a great life and is happy. Is he "deep"? (Again, generally and relatively speaking, when you compare him to say, Goethe.) Doubt it. Does it matter? Probably not. Does it make him a less good person? No. It just makes him more shallow. No more, no less.

 

But he wouldn't work well with someone who DOES need someone deep.

 

But I'm disinclined to believe that the more someone is like me, the more mature they are.

 

Well, I certainly agree with that!! I never said that being like me = more mature. I may have characteristics that are more mature than someone else. I may have some that are less. But the more mature ones, I'd hope to find in someone else as well.

 

Her attitude, in other words, would indeed diminish her appeal for me - but less because it was immature and shallow, and more because it would not mesh with my personality, values, and needs.

 

I see what you're saying. But then also I will add, that her values are more superficial (skin/membrane/tissue deep) than yours. And that's why you're incompatible. In my view of this.

 

I guess I see it like this: we're all a bunch of animals in a vast and colourful menagerie. As a wolf, I'm not going to turn to the turtle and say: "You're too slow! You don't have enough fur! Where's your pack!" I don't measure everyone by my own yardstick. We're all different, and we move through the world driven by different desires - some of which we can later realize were helpful, unhelpful, or necessary at the time. But it's not for me to make that decision or come to that conclusion for other people; after all, who the hell am I? I'm just one animal in a menagerie - no more right or wrong than the turtle sitting next to me.

 

I like this analogy a lot! And yet...I will still say...the wolf is fast, and the turtle is slow. They each have their place in the world. But the turtle IS slow, and I'll call it that because that's what it is. Since the two together, by contrast, have established relativity.

 

Hopefully that's not all gotten too convoluted or circular.

[DaBladeRoden]

If your boyfriend looked like Eric Bana, would you still be as sexually turned on by him in the bedroom if he had the same personality, but instead looked like Carrot Top, or Barbara Bush? And if someone said that they would find their bf less arousing in that scenario, would you consider them shallow?

[tiredofvampires]

If your boyfriend looked like Eric Bana, would you still be as turned on by him in the bedroom if he had the same personality, but instead looked like Carrot Top, or Barbara Bush? And if someone said that they would their bf less arousing in that scenario, would you consider them shallow?

 

I don't know if you're addressing me, Blade?

 

But since I've been the one going on about this, I'll take the liberty to assume you're directing this question towards me.

 

This thread is about taking a particular trait in isolation of everything else. If my boyfriend looked like Barbara Bush, not only would he have one trait turning me off, but an entire face and body and look. He'd look like a masculine grandmother to me, and no, I wouldn't feel the same way about that as I would if he looked like Eric Bana, provided the same personalities. Lol.

 

A couple of posts back, I mentioned that I have turned men down because I was not physically attracted to them. I have not claimed and will not claim on any thread that I don't care what a man looks like -- that he could look like anyone or anything and I'd be good with it. There are some men I wouldn't be attracted to, to the point that it wouldn't work.

 

And for the record...if Carrot Top was my type in non-physical ways, I'd take him. He's not THAT horrible looking to me. Shock and awe, folks.

 

(Edit:

He's not THAT horrible looking to me.

Wait, it depends on the picture. In many, he is. HAHA. He's gotten hella more freaky since I last saw him.)

[Lucius]

But if you're out there with a perceived severe disadvantage within the culture (as many women like the OP feels, with her small chest), or shortish height as a man...then the question of your being rejected continually for a single trait then becomes highly relevant. And, the discussion of relative "depth" and "shallowness" in people's criteria for judging a partner (again, that word "relativity" becomes key here) takes on significance.

 

I see what you're saying, and most people would undoubtedly agree with you. My perspective is this: if the goal of a discussion is to teach a person that they are beautiful exactly as they are, then there is no need to label or deride anybody at all. This goal can be reached by focusing on true things, personal things, without judging the values of other people at all. I can talk about how I find such and such a trait beautiful, and that such and such a character would turn me on no matter what eye/hair/skin colour she may have - without ever once calling a person dissimilar to myself "shallow". It's not a necessary part of this otherwise necessary discussion.

 

And I guess we'll have to agree to disagree (and we agree on so much, I suppose it's about time! on the term "superficial." I do believe there's some truth to the saying, "Beauty is skin deep" (as I hear the silent chorus of young, disaffected male posters boo'ing me.) There's a reason they have that saying out there still. Because if you cut my left boob off, I'm still me. It's a superficial part of me, just as the skin is on the surface and the intestines are deep inside. Well, values also have strata in my opinion.

 

Beauty is indeed skin deep - but that which drives us to seek out said beauty is not. We are driven by powerful subconscious forces - but these drives are slightly different from person to person, as is our inclination and capacity to interpret them. When everything is laid bare, nothing is "deep". Things merely "are". I am content to let a woman who likes men taller than myself like men taller than myself - and to reject me as a result. I'm more interested in that girl in the corner reading a book anyway. I don't need to quantify a person's level of depth to pursue what moves me.

 

It doesn't make anyone bad or criminal or even stupid to base their decision on the superficial strata, but that's what they are doing. Hugh Hefner has a great life and is happy. Is he "deep"? (Again, generally and relatively speaking, when you compare him to say, Goethe.) Doubt it. Does it matter? Probably not. Does it make him a less good person? No. It just makes him more shallow. No more, no less.

 

Well, comparing the relative depth of a human being, to me, is a little like comparing the relative morality of an apple with a walnut. It's beside the point. To me the lowliest moron is as complex and wonderful a creature, deep down, as the shiniest paragon. We're all part of the same chaotic circus, and we're none of us as different as we seem.

 

Well, I certainly agree with that!! I never said that being like me = more mature. I may have characteristics that are more mature than someone else. I may have some that are less. But the more mature ones, I'd hope to find in someone else as well.

 

No, but when we set up a dichotomy of "deep" vs "shallow", where deep = our standards (as revealed by our opposition to those standards we've deemed shallow), there is something of this dynamic at work. When I see myself doing that (and I know that we all can), I try to stop. My values are there to guide ME - not chastise someone else.

 

I like this analogy a lot! And yet...I will still say...the wolf is fast, and the turtle is slow. They each have their place in the world. But the turtle IS slow, and I'll call it that because that's what it is. Since the two together, by contrast, have established relativity.

 

Ah, but the word "shallow" is not measurable, and it's not without connotation. There is emotionality and condemnation in the word also. Would you tell the turtle he was slow with a tone of dismissal or contempt? Telling it like it is can be a funny thing. It's one thing to say: "Breast size is really important to you, huh?" and another entirely to claim: "You're shallow and/or a jerk. So and so is lucky to have weeded out such a shallow jerk."

[tiredofvampires]

What's interesting about this kind of discussion, Lucius, is that by it's very nature, I can appear to agree with you and disagree simultaneously -- and therefore, it starts to approach a certain arbitrariness. And, to the observer, an effort to stretch my points merely to take a position. I think we believe the same things, but have a different spin in this thread.

 

I've read your last exceptionally inclusive, embracing and accepting post several times, and can't find a single point upon which to argue you, in all honesty. It's most brilliant and beautiful! And I agree in essence, ultimately, with everything you say.

 

And yet, I will say this:

 

When everything is laid bare, nothing is "deep". Things merely "are".

 

Yes and no. People aren't ever "bad" -- they just "are". On one level. On another level, evil and wickedness exist in the world.

 

People aren't "good" -- they just "are". On one level. On another, kindness and justice exist in the world.

 

There is the "Tao" (I know you'll appreciate this) -- the whole. The entirety, unseparated. On one level. But on the other -- there is yin, and there is yang. Separate forces. Opposite forces. Complementary forces. Dichotomies.

 

And so on the prosaic, mundane level people are operating in this world, there are "sweeties" -- and there are "jerks."

 

Given that this is so, I would say that if I took my blouse off in a moment of passion for the first time with my lover-to-be, and he suddenly pulled back and said, "Uhh...um. Huh. I didn't know they were so...uh. SMALL. You know. I really have to go. I can't do this."

 

I would call that -- in plain English:

 

A jerk.

 

In the cosmic scheme of things, he is a marvel of the universe. But as far as my dating life goes, this was a lousy, crappy experience because this man was expressing a need of his that, compared with other needs he might have had met with me -- such a my being honest, loyal, caring, intelligent, funny, etc. -- he chose something least likely to stand the test of time in a long-term relationship.

 

His needs are his needs, his desires are his desires...but some of these will lend themselves better to quality relationships. And this system of values does not.

 

Even, I might add, when both people share the same values. Because then each of them has nothing more solid to back up the relationship -- and ergo, the 50%+ divorce rate.

 

I have no need to put anyone down, to bring someone else up. But I also am able to distinguish things without condemning them. (And, not related to this subject itself, I am able to condemn things that are condemnable on the level at which humans do condemn.)

 

Ah, but the word "shallow" is not measurable, and it's not without connotation. There is emotionality and condemnation in the word also. Would you tell the turtle he was slow with a tone of dismissal or contempt? Telling it like it is can be a funny thing. It's one thing to say: "Breast size is really important to you, huh?" and another entirely to claim: "You're shallow and/or a jerk. So and so is lucky to have weeded out such a shallow jerk."

 

I know this is hard to believe, but in spite of my use of the word "jerk", I wish the person who lives for big cars, big breasts, and big screen TV's a happy life. And if he's happy with these values, as superficial (compared to others) as I find them, I am not passing judgment upon him. He has the curse of superficiality. I have the curse of too much introspection, and in the end, I think we'd be even. So I'm repelled by his values. But I don't think everyone should adopt mine, either.

 

And I think some people are more complex than others. (Anyway, mental health professionals have told me so.) A simple moron is not a complex moron, ha.

 

We all have a unique place in the whole. But it takes simplicity to know complex, and in my very unpoetic life of being a middle-aged woman looking for lasting love, and it being elusive, after many attempts...it takes a "jerk" to know a "gem".