Looks vs. Personality. (Trying to organize some thoughts on the issue)

[Jpo]

(PLEASE NOTE that this is in the context of dating only, not friendships, etc.)

 

Everyone is going to fall somewhere on this spectrum:

 

Looks absolutely important ------Looks/Personality equally important ------ Personality absolutely important

 

Now anywhere to the left of “personality absolutely important” someone is going to claim that you are shallow. Now there doesn’t seem to be any sort of basis on where being shallow starts or stops, since most everyone has their own personal cutoff look-wise for who they would date. In general though, you seem to be considered shallow when your cutoff is above the respective person calling you shallow.

 

If we take the definition of shallow literally, to be superficial (as in something that is on the surface), to date someone for looks only is “shallow”. I mean you are dating someone for what is superficial, or what is on the outside rather than the inside. But the question I want to bring up with this post is, ‘why is dating someone for personality any better than dating someone for looks?’

 

Well wait a second you say! There are so many reasons that dating someone based on looks is not fair!

Nature - You are born with your looks, you cannot help what you look like.

Nurture - The way you are brought up can affect your looks.

Looks Fade - As you age your looks go away.

 

Outside factors for deformity - What if you get in a car crash, are a burn victim, get some horrible disease that changes your appearance, etc?!

 

So it isn’t fair to date someone based on this, because all of these factors are outside of our control! Well let’s look at the same criteria again, except this time instead of appearance, we will use personality.

 

Nature - You are also born with some sort of base line personality, whether it is you are more extroverted or introverted, etc. The way your brain works, your chemical balance. Also there are things like down-syndrome or various mental handicaps you can be born with.

 

Nurture - The way you are brought up can also affect your personality. Many phobias or various psychological conditions occur do to things a child experiences when they are very young.

 

Personality Fades - Personalities do not stay beautiful either. You deteriorate both outside and inside. The mind also goes with age. Look at things like going senile or Alzheimer’s.

 

Outside factors for deformity - Your personality can also be deformed by things like a car crash or disease. You may like to believe that your personality is who you are, but a certain part of your brain gets hit the wrong way or a tumor pushes against the wrong section and you can go from being extremely nice to a complete a-hole.

 

That’s not enough though right? Because you can change your personality and work on it to make it better! Yes you can, but you can also do the same thing for outward appearance. Exercise, eat right, make-up, dress different, personal hygiene, etc.

 

So if you “shouldn’t” discriminate people (for dating purposes) because of their looks, then shouldn’t that also hold true personality? Don’t turn down that shy creepy guy in the corner of the room (because it might not be his fault he is that way), or perhaps even consider the guy with mental handicap.

 

So we can either discriminate against no one or discriminate against everyone.

Discuss.

[Jpo]

I have been thinking about this to myself for awhile, and obviously debating by your lonesome will only get you so far, not considering it from enough angles. I'm just curious to get other people's thoughts on this. Is this the issue of shallowness an actual issue, or is it just a result of jealously, etc?

 

It is actually something that has been bothering me ever since I took a psych class. The idea that something could happen to your brain, like an injury, that could completely change your personality was disturbing. Especially when I was brought up being told your personality is who you are.

[greywolf]

That's why, ideally, when in a relationship, you love someone for who they are regardless of what happens in the future. However, we're all only human and certain factors will affect how we feel about someone.

[LAYAAN]

I'll share what I've been thinking.

Looks is one thing and overall being fit, healthy is another. What I'm attracted to is a person who is lean-average and maintains a healthy lifestyle. I find a range of skin/eye/hair colors attractive.

A good personality (healthy outlook and a progressive attitude towards life overall) can conceal/compensate to certain extent not-so-perfect looks. Yes, that can change, but at this age I think it would fade much more slowly than looks.

I'm not trying to bash anyone, but so far I've met only 1 man who said that personality is important for him. Then again he said that he first needs to be attracted to the girl (not saying that its wrong). So, I think, men overall are more shallow and less forgiving in the looks area. If they are attracted to the exterior then only they will try to see what's on the inside, again most of them won't even care what's on the inside.

Some men can pass a similar remark on women being shallow about money and status. So, looks to men is money/status to women.

I find that women are very forgiving in the looks area, if they think that the guy has other things (can be personality/fat wallet/status) to offer.

[In the Dark]

I personally everyone HAS to be physically attracted to the other person.

This does NOT mean the person IS attractive to the majority.

 

I believe this is the way it is.

 

But.....

 

In some cases incredibly high social status, power and wealth can be in place of physical attraction.

Predominantly working for males rather than females.

 

After all this comes the personality compatibility and this is where the longevity of the relationship is.

 

But in saying this, the more the person is of the two above, the more "give" a person may have for that person when it comes to personality clashes or general behavior which another does not agree with or relate to.

[Lucius]

"Personality" (meaning a compatible and admirable personality) is an absolute necessity for me. Mental and emotional intimacy is the primary thing that I look for and need in a long-term relationship. That's not how it 'should' be, it's just how it is for me.

 

"Looks" (meaning attractive and compelling looks) are a wonderful thing that, in my view, do add significantly and tangibly to a relationship - but are nonetheless not nearly so necessary for the kind of relationship that I myself find most fulfilling. Again, this is not how it 'should' be, it's just how it is for me.

 

If I were to place my own set of preferences on (my interpretation of) your scale, it would be about three quarters of the way to the right; acknowledging the necessity of a compatible and compelling personality, whilst also conceding the non-essential but nevertheless relevant and tangible impact of looks.

[LightbulbSun]

Looks can also enhance how you feel about a person. Therefore influencing their personality.

 

Everyone has different 'standards' and 'preferences' when it comes to looks, that you can't really call anyone shallow for rejecting someone based on the way they look (unless they're mean about it.)

[ay0_x]

I personally everyone HAS to be physically attracted to the other person.

This does NOT mean the person IS attractive to the majority.

 

I believe this is the way it is.

 

But.....

 

In some cases incredibly high social status, power and wealth can be in place of physical attraction.

Predominantly working for males rather than females.

 

After all this comes the personality compatibility and this is where the longevity of the relationship is.

 

But in saying this, the more the person is of the two above, the more "give" a person may have for that person when it comes to personality clashes or general behavior which another does not agree with or relate to.

 

 

This.

 

Plus, I don't think anyone should date anyone who they dont find physically attractive. My motto for this is "I deserve to be with someone attractive, and THEY deserve to be with someone who thinks they're hot/gorgeous/sexy/cute".

 

I wouldn't want to find out the guy I was seeing thought I was ugly- I'd do him the favour and say "cya!".

[chelsea13]

Very interesting post.

I was thinking about it on the way home today too, for one thing it took me awhile to realise that I have a personality problem - I tend to say really extreme things that offense people, and I tend to be well, a b***h sometimes. But I never realised it. Because no one has ever told me and in a way it was nature and nurture. Plus, I have a phobia towards vomit (people vomiting.. mostly) so when my friend gets sick or drunk, I tend to run off.. which I hate myself for but phobia is something that is even worse than fear - you will basically risk anything just to be away from it. And for that I don't go out that much because people always end up puking on the streets. Now, for someone who doesn't know that I have a phobia, or someone who just doesn't understand at all what phobia is like - he/she will write me off as a horrible selfish person who would run away from friends. And that is very sad because phobia is something that I have no control over.

In this case, I agree with JPO that along with looks, these are things that you have no control over.

 

However, I believe that 90% of people focus on both looks and personalities, to some extent. Most people can't be with someone they are 0% attracted to, and most people can't have long lasting relationships with someone they are extremely attracted to only for their looks.

 

It's probably fear to say that shallowness is when you are with the person solely for looks because you want a trophy girlfriend/wife.

 

The fact that human beings like pretty things doesn't mean that they are shallow.

 

If there was a guy who was absolutely revolting but the girl likes him for his personalities solely - then is she shallow? No. Because personalities are something that you can't judge from first sight, so it must have meant that she took time to know him before falling for who he is inside. Plus in the process, it must have beautified him.

 

However, if it was about looks and money - then those we call superficial things because the former is something that you can judge from first (few) sights, and the latter.. well .. there's not even a need to go into details.

[BriarRose]

I have fallen for men that were not conventionally goodlooking. One was really overweight but I was crazy about him. He lost 50 lbs then dumped me, lol! My point is, just because you go for the less attractive, sweet, shy - whatever - person, doesn't mean they will stay with you.

[Cognitive_Canine]

It's only shallow or superficial if you're dating someone for their good looks. Such as dating a woman for her breasts and not caring about her personality. That is shallow. Being attracted to and happy with your girlfriend with large breasts who also has a wonderful personality is not shallow. Really, it's a case by case basis, I think.

 

I would say personality is way more important than looks but 'attraction' is just as important as personality.

 

My boyfriend isn't a conventional beauty. But, I love the way he looks because...I don't even know. I just find him extremely attractive. Perhaps his personality is influencing me or it's pheromones. But some unexplainable force makes me very attracted to him and him very attracted to me.

 

I would not date a guy who had a wonderful personality who I wasn't atttracted to. He could have pretty boy looks but if the attraction isn't there...I just couldn't do it. I'd be tempted to because we mesh so well.

 

So, attraction and looks are extremely important but they are not mutually exclusive. Luckily, you can have high amount of compatibility with both in the relationship and there is no reason to choose one over the other.

[absinthe]

Is it discriminatory or is it personal preference? Dating isn't an equal opportunity scenario and shouldn't be viewed as such. Settling leads to unhappiness or very short-term gain. As well, extremism, whether it's superficiality or solely drawn to personality, are just forms of perfectionism gone awry.

[Jpo]

That's why, ideally, when in a relationship, you love someone for who they are regardless of what happens in the future. However, we're all only human and certain factors will affect how we feel about someone.

 

See. I agree with that. You are not going to find him/her beautiful 100% of the time, nor are your personalities going to mix 100% of the time.

 

I personally everyone HAS to be physically attracted to the other person.

This does NOT mean the person IS attractive to the majority.

 

I believe this is the way it is.

 

But.....

 

In some cases incredibly high social status, power and wealth can be in place of physical attraction.

Predominantly working for males rather than females.

 

After all this comes the personality compatibility and this is where the longevity of the relationship is.

 

But in saying this, the more the person is of the two above, the more "give" a person may have for that person when it comes to personality clashes or general behavior which another does not agree with or relate to.

 

I completely agree with the bolded. I just don't think a lot of people see it that way.

 

In example, and one thing that led me to write this, is a girl on a dating website I belong to messaged me and seemed interested, then asked me, "how do you know who you want to meet?"

 

I answered, "well, if I find her attractive and she seems cool from her profile/message then I ask to meet her." Immediately she said, "Ohh... You're one of those 'looks' guys."

 

Well I didn't really think that was fair, and went on to tell her why and probably scared her away from online dating forever lol.

I do agree with your final paragraph, that there will have to be more give, but that is the same as if you go only for personality with respect to looks.

 

It's probably fear to say that shallowness is when you are with the person solely for looks because you want a trophy girlfriend/wife.

 

The fact that human beings like pretty things doesn't mean that they are shallow.

 

If there was a guy who was absolutely revolting but the girl likes him for his personalities solely - then is she shallow? No. Because personalities are something that you can't judge from first sight, so it must have meant that she took time to know him before falling for who he is inside. Plus in the process, it must have beautified him.

 

However, if it was about looks and money - then those we call superficial things because the former is something that you can judge from first (few) sights, and the latter.. well .. there's not even a need to go into details.

 

Well of course dating a guy for personality solely cannot be shallow, since shallow would refer to the surface, but the issue more is should shallow be considered derogatory?

 

Is it discriminatory or is it personal preference? Dating isn't an equal opportunity scenario and shouldn't be viewed as such. Settling leads to unhappiness or very short-term gain. As well, extremism, whether it's superficiality or solely drawn to personality, are just forms of perfectionism gone awry.

 

I don't actually think it is discriminatory, I mean it is in a sense, but I think that word is unnecessarily negative, because in the end it is personal preference. I completely agree with your post though.

[sophie274]

Very honestly, what I think is, nice try, but no, I don't buy it!

 

I don't think it is shallow for you to want to date someone you find physically/sexually attractive. Dating is by definition an exercise in discrimination, so throwing words like "prejudice" or shallow around is often not helpful at all. But basing the choice of whom to date PRIMARILY around looks is what I think is shallow. I read your post as trying to disprove that, and I think it doesn't work.

 

First of all, let me say that I think no one should be going around telling other people that they're shallow. I think the problem arises when we see posts on here by people basing their dating decisions either primarily or only on physical factors, and posters want to warn that it's their own choice if they want to do that, but it's not likely to lead to a fulfilling relationship (which is really what makes it shallow, in my opinion).

 

So you're trying to make the points that looks and personality are equally based on nature and nurture factors that the individual can't control, and that they're equally fleeting. I think that is a HUGE stretch. I don't really want to argue the details but I'm curious to know if you truly honestly from the bottom of your heart believe that personality is equally random and just as hard to change as physical appearance.

 

But regardless of that, the real reason that it's shallow isn't because of the degree of control that the person has over their personality or appearance, it's because of the relative importance of the two in how they affect the relationship.

 

Physical appearance affects:

- what the person looks like

- how sexually attracted you are to them and PERHAPS then how good the sex is, although I've heard from sources much more experienced than me that you can have great sex with someone you don't find super attractive.

 

Personality affects:

- personal interests and curiosities, which is really important not just because of what the couple can share but because your conversation is going to revolve around what you're interested in

- values

- ambitions for the future (including wanting children or not!)

- spending patterns - being spendy or thrifty is often a matter of personality

- sense of humor

- communication style

- sexual preferences

- political opinions and levels of tolerance/judgment

- general mood and "vibe" of the person - bubbly, ditsy, moody, broody, easy-going, type A, chatty, quiet, shy, outgoing, life of the party, homebody etc etc etc

 

That's the MEAT of the relationship, so picking someone based primarily on how they look makes no sense (to me). That being said, my general motto is live and let live, but yes, I still find it a little baffling when someone considers not dating someone they click with incredibly well because of height or breast size.

[Jpo]

So you're trying to make the points that looks and personality are equally based on nature and nurture factors that the individual can't control, and that they're equally fleeting. I think that is a HUGE stretch. I don't really want to argue the details but I'm curious to know if you truly honestly from the bottom of your heart believe that personality is equally random and just as hard to change as physical appearance.

 

Actually I wouldn't mind if you did get into the details. Because while it seems to me that it should be a huge stretch, I can't really put me finger on why. You see, I was brought up to believe that they are not equally random or hard to change, so deep down I don't know what I should believe. When I look at it logically though, I am having trouble seeing a difference, and that could mean I am right, or I am just not seeing something. So part of me posting this was to get some other people's insight.

 

And yes, logically at least, I cannot think of a reason to believe that personality or appearance is any more or less random or easier/harder to change.

 

Using my own personal experience, I used to suffer from extreme social anxiety disorder, and no matter what I tried to do, I could not get over it. Finally a doctor started putting me on drugs to correct a chemical imbalance in my brain and I changed a lot. I don't see how this couldn't be likened to something like plastic surgery for instance.

 

But regardless of that, the real reason that it's shallow isn't because of the degree of control that the person has over their personality or appearance, it's because of the relative importance of the two in how they affect the relationship.

 

Physical appearance affects:

- what the person looks like

- how sexually attracted you are to them and PERHAPS then how good the sex is, although I've heard from sources much more experienced than me that you can have great sex with someone you don't find super attractive.

 

Personality affects:

- personal interests and curiosities, which is really important not just because of what the couple can share but because your conversation is going to revolve around what you're interested in

- values

- ambitions for the future (including wanting children or not!)

- spending patterns - being spendy or thrifty is often a matter of personality

- sense of humor

- communication style

- sexual preferences

- political opinions and levels of tolerance/judgment

- general mood and "vibe" of the person - bubbly, ditsy, moody, broody, easy-going, type A, chatty, quiet, shy, outgoing, life of the party, homebody etc etc etc

 

That's the MEAT of the relationship, so picking someone based primarily on how they look makes no sense (to me). That being said, my general motto is live and let live, but yes, I still find it a little baffling when someone considers not dating someone they click with incredibly well because of height or breast size.

 

First I just wanted to comment that I don't think that anyone dates solely for looks or for personality. That said, I also want to say that people have different priorities.

 

For instance, I feel like I can get along with a very wide range of personalities, and I don't have very strong feelings on things like having children (I could go either way), but I do find that I am not physically attracted to as wide a range of women. For me, physical attraction could play a huge role in the woman I want to date, whereas personality not so much because I feel like I get along well with most people.

 

Do you kind of understand what I'm saying? I didn't mean they don't care about personality at all, I mean that is impossible (for the most part), but the importance they put on personality when choosing a mate.

[TouchNastY]

Part of the problem seems to be a semantic issue; people toss the word "shallow" around like the buzzword of the year [add to that "creepy" and "stalk"].

 

I'd say that being "shallow" occurs when a prospect is forgone in absence of a preference. Meaning: my preference is not present, therefore I (arbitrarily) forgo the option.

 

 

Example:

"If I like bananas, then that is my preference. If there is a banana, an apple, and a pear, I will exercise my preference and choose the banana. If my preference is bananas and apples, I will be indifferent between the two, but will select either of the two over the pear. If my preference is bananas, and no banana is present, I will be indifferent between the choices, but will still select one."

 

Being "shallow" occurs when:

"I like bananas, and that is my preference. If there is an orange, an apple, and a pear, I will choose none of them, because my preference is bananas, and there aren't any."

 

This is forgoing the other prospects in absence of the banana, which is being shallow.

 

Interesting side note: By definition, the banana is no longer a preference, as a preference is not all-exclusive. Had it been a preference, another fruit would have been selected as placeholder in its absence; the example is one of being shallow, because all were forgone in absence of the preference.

 

 

 

What does it all mean?

 

 

 

It means that I could prefer blondes, but may still be interested if they're brunette or red. I become shallow (and the preference no longer a preference) when I disqualify a prospect simply because they aren't blonde.

 

The inclusive preference can also be reversed into an exclusive preference:

I don't prefer blondes (or, "I prefer not blonde" if that's less confusing) can mean that I am indifferent between the brunette and red, but will select one of the two before the blonde. Note that this does NOT mean "I prefer brunette" or "I prefer red," which are inclusive, but rather "I prefer not blonde," which is exclusive.

 

The "I prefer not blonde" preference becomes shallow, and again, no longer a preference when a prospect is forgone in absence of the preference:

I don't prefer blondes, and that is my preference. Since there are three blondes, I will choose none of them, because my preference is non-blondes, and there aren't any.

 

 

 

So there are two forms of preferences: the (more common) inclusive, and the exclusive.

 

 

 

 

...[D]ating a guy for personality solely cannot be shallow, since shallow would refer to the surface, but the issue more is should shallow be considered derogatory?

By the above definition, it is shallow, though not how being shallow is frequently framed. The "I'm not shallow" straw-man is typically framed as a preference for "not attractive, good personality." [interestingly, it's often worded as "not attractive, BUT good personality," implying that the two are mutually exclusive and somehow magically self-compensatory.]

 

Let's use the not-so-classic-yet-oh-so-logical line-up:

 

i. Attractive/good personality

ii. Attractive/bad personality

iii. Not attractive/good personality

iv. Not attractive/bad personality

 

Using preference: "good personality," one would theoretically choose i./iii. over ii./iv.

This instance doesn't make sense, as it states that one would be indifferent in selecting i. and iii. over ii. and iv., even though i. and ii. are looks upgrades to iii. and iv. respectively. It also doesn't make sense, in that, were this a true preference by definition, ii. and iv. would be selected in absence of i. and iii. Ceteris paribus, i. would be selected over iii., and ii. over iv. So through iterated elimination, we have the observed practice of preference "good personality" selecting i. over ii., and selecting none in absence of i. Therefore, it's not a true preference, and is shallow by definition.

 

 

 

The preference "good personality" has now been amended to "not attractive, good personality," as per the standard argument against being shallow (the colloquial definition):

 

i. Attractive/good personality

ii. Attractive/bad personality

iii. Not attractive/good personality

iv. Not attractive/bad personality

 

Using preference: "not attractive, good personality," one would theoretically select iii. over the others, remaining indifferent between i., ii., and iv. In the absence of iii., one would be indifferent between i.,ii., and iv., but still choose one. Remember, the preference is what is preferred, but is not exclusive in absence. But if we translate this situation to reality, that's not what happens. One would never choose iii. over its upgraded counterpart i., and in the absence of iii., one would never choose iv. Again, it's not a true preference, and is shallow by definition.

[Note: the four permutations were used strictly to explore whether a preference is truly a preference, and if it is shallow. I realize the situation will not actually present itself, as the easy selection would be i.]

 

So the person saying "I don't go for the attractive ones, just those with good personalities" is unwittingly being shallow. Even if saying that somehow assuages their guilt.... These examples don't get as much press, for obvious reasons.

[TouchNastY]

Jpo:

 

In the matchmaking context, we've seen that being shallow is almost systemic, and that "preferences" aren't true preferences. So there is no "shallow" argument against going after that very attractive someone. Don't let other people influence your dating choices [that's a better word!], and if they cry foul, simply explain what I outlined in the prior post.

 

 

 

 

sophie274:

 

...t's because of the relative importance of the two in how they affect the relationship.

This was a little curious to me. You delineated what you felt the two contributed to the relationship, though the latter was four times longer than the former. Seems a little outcome-based. I would like to point out one big huge thing that always seems to be left out of these arguments: looks may be transient, but you pass them to your offspring. So yes, "when we become old we lose our looks," but they're in our genetic blueprint and are passed on to the next generation....

 

...and they're a big gift to give. All these "it's personality, not looks" discussions lend all-the-more credence to the fact that good looks have myriad benefits and positive externalities. Looks (the prototypical proportion and symmetry) are also indicative of good health and hormone levels. It's not enough simply to dismiss a pretty face. Is it everything? No. Is it something big that is conveniently omitted? Yes.

 

As LightbulbSun said, looks can influence how one feels about a person, therefore influencing your perception of their personality. The key point here is that "their personality" is your interpretation of their character, not their interpretation of their character [the latter is far more complex and static than the former, for obvious reasons]. And that interpretation is colored by their appearance, and that coloring can influence their interpretation of YOUR personality, which will be influenced by your appearance.... It's all inter-related and somewhat tautological.

 

It's not as simple as this contributes this, while that contributes that. The interplay works both ways: this list of physical traits is modified by these personality traits (i.e. "she's attractive, but no personality"), while the personality traits modify the physical traits concurrently (i.e. "he grew on me"). So in saying that spending patterns, sense of humor, communication style, levels of tolerance, and comportment are personality-derived contributions to a relationship is neglecting the fact that these are engendered by the physical contributions. You could even say:

 

Physical appearance affects:

- "Personality affects" list

 

Personality affects:

- "Physical appearance affects" list

 

...but that wouldn't get us anywhere...or would it? The two are intimately inter-related; a dichotomy can't be created along which the two are compared in isolation.

 

 

 

I [...] find it a little baffling when someone considers not dating someone they click with incredibly well because of height or breast size.

As do I, though I don't find this to be an issue of being shallow, as that, by definition, is systemic to dating. Instead, I think this issue is instead one of self-esteem, projection of some sort, inability to commit, etc.

[Jpo]

While I think what your wrote is interesting, I think it is way to over simplified (I know you mentioned that). But I wanted to go a little deeper and say, someone could theoretically prefer iii. in your example, because they just don't trust "beautiful" people and think they might cheat on them. This is anecdotal evidence, but I actually know someone who refuses to date a person who is a certain amount attractive because of what I just wrote.

[In the Dark]

 

 

 

I completely agree with the bolded. I just don't think a lot of people see it that way.

 

In example, and one thing that led me to write this, is a girl on a dating website I belong to messaged me and seemed interested, then asked me, "how do you know who you want to meet?"

 

I answered, "well, if I find her attractive and she seems cool from her profile/message then I ask to meet her." Immediately she said, "Ohh... You're one of those 'looks' guys."

 

She was thinking inside the square & out of all honesty, looks is important but what someone finds attractive is not always going to be the conventional barbie look a like.

 

Yes indeed there are men out there who do but most of the time they are those typical generic men who are predictable in other things about them as well.

[TouchNastY]

But I wanted to go a little deeper and say, someone could theoretically prefer iii. in your example, because they just don't trust "beautiful" people and think they might cheat on them. This is anecdotal evidence, but I actually know someone who refuses to date a person who is a certain amount attractive because of what I just wrote.

I appreciate what you're saying. The basic outline was to present the sort of intrinsic, baseline primary effect. As seen, the translation from theory to practice in the "primary" is not coincident. What you're describing sounds like a "secondary effect" defense mechanism derived from bad experiences. In that instance, the person would likely avoid those whom they perceived to be i.s and ii.s - the problem is...what the hell does a i. (and ii.) look like? [it's theoretically the most desirable type, too!]

 

Another flaw with proposing the four permutations upfront is that, in reality, we don't know who is what type, and we're rarely presented with all four at once [and, were we, who would know which is what?]. It's easy to make examples, I know. In reality, you may have a bunch of iv.s

[BriarRose]

While I think what your wrote is interesting, I think it is way to over simplified (I know you mentioned that). But I wanted to go a little deeper and say, someone could theoretically prefer iii. in your example, because they just don't trust "beautiful" people and think they might cheat on them. This is anecdotal evidence, but I actually know someone who refuses to date a person who is a certain amount attractive because of what I just wrote.

 

I can understand not trusting beautiful people. Dating them is a higher risk endeavor for infidelity simply because they are presented with more opportunity to do so. Of course, that doesn't mean someone will cheat on you just because they are hot.

[Curious_Girl]

For instance, I feel like I can get along with a very wide range of personalities, and I don't have very strong feelings on things like having children (I could go either way), but I do find that I am not physically attracted to as wide a range of women. For me, physical attraction could play a huge role in the woman I want to date, whereas personality not so much because I feel like I get along well with most people.

 

I have similar feelings about this. I, too, can get along with almost anyone, but it's rare that I am really attracted to a man physically. I see good-looking men and I think, "Hey, he's hot!" but I am not actually attracted to them. So for me, finding someone physically attractive (to me) really is a challenge.

 

That said, I find that people appear better or worse looking to me depending on their personlality. If I like them, they look better; if not, they somehow lose their appeal.

 

Also, if you are the type of person that can "get along with anyone," it doesn't mean that just anyone would be the best match for you. Yes, you could perhaps make it work, but it wouldn't be as good as it could be. I have found that it's hard for me to really assess if someone is a good partner based on whether or not we get on b/c of that. [i don't know if this is making sense.]

 

Finally, I think that personality is harder to change. Looks - there's plastic surgery, hair color, make-up, flattering clothes, etc. But for personality, while it's true that meds can help with certain issues, they cannot (or should not) radically alter one's personality. Or at least, not in every way. If someone is depressed and needs meds, then obviously they will be happier and therefore better company when they are on them. But if someone is just plain selfish and nasty, there is no medication for that! they would have to be willing to go to therapy and do the work to be different.

 

I guess that's the difference: changing your personality generally requires a lot more effort than changing your looks. I think it's a lot easier to get to the gym than deal with childhood issues and hurtful beliefs etc.

[Curious_Girl]

Of course, that doesn't mean someone will cheat on you just because they are hot.

 

Nor does it mean that they won't if they're not.

[newwave]

The thing is finding someone attractive to you, and it's not always physical. If I posted photos of some of the guys I dated people would ask why. I am generally attracted to certain types of guys and it's not all looks. After all, the perfect idea is to find that special someone and be with them until you pass on as elderly. Of course that doesn't happen to everyone.

[Sanesoul]

Personally, I am one of the most messes up human beings alive. I won't go into details here, but I am bat-**** crazy. My husband loves me and my personality just the same.

 

He thinks I'm stunningly beautiful too and tells me that all the time.

 

I'm not sure what's wrong with him, but I love him to pieces.