Lowering my standards for physical attractiveness in dating?

[icecreamaddict]

Don't give up, just recognize it as a hindrance. There are great girls out there who wouldn't be bothered by the fact that you have a child, I just think they are the minority. Don't be so hung up on the physical, as I don't think your physical qualities are really preventing you from finding a relationship. If you think you are doing everything else right, keep doing what you're doing. Meeting the right person takes time and maybe you just need to be more patient and expand your social circle or try different ways of meeting people.

[itsallgrand]

I personally find it foolish for anyone to get involved in relationships where there isn't physical chemistry. And I would never do it. I wrote on here before about my ONE instance of dating a very nice man for a while with who I felt almost no physical chemistry. It was brutal, and it didn't last long before I said good bye and knew 100% that course of action is never going to be for me.

 

The reason I think that is that physical chemistry, and sex, are an important part of a relationship to me. And from the sounds of it, you too. A lot of people! Some people - not so much - and those are the people that it can maybe work for (getting with someone where there isn't attraction, except to maybe their stability or money or their company).

 

If it matters to you, what happens is you'll end up with a dissatisfied sex life, intimacy, and someone is going to feel inadequate and/or resentful eventually.

 

The thing is, I don't think you need to get hyper focused on your physical traits. Because honestly, physical chemistry goes beyond that. Most of us have had this experience; someone who 'there is just something about you'. The chemistry is intense, the attraction, and it is a lasting building one. Not just run of the mill lust. It's a deep attraction to the person. It's not exactly about how a person looks, not really, it's a combination of a lot of things.

 

There is no reason you can't find that. Just keep yourself open.

[Ms Darcy]

funny thing is, many of the attractive single mothers I know in their 20's have no problem eventually finding someone, and usually they do not have to lower their standards terribly. why are men different?

 

I don't like this gender baiting and I think you should stop it.

 

Listen, people talk about attraction like it is this straight line throughout your life. There may be certain wants that never change, but as people age their likes do evolve.

 

It's not a conscious process. In my experience, heartache can be one of the best dern gifts life gives us. It can make us superficial, bitter players who remain emotionally unavailable. And that's no good.

 

OR it can make us reflective. There is nothing here we can say that will directly change your mind about who you are attracted to. But the reality is that as time goes on, if you experience heartache and longing, if you undergo spiritual growth, if you seek to understand others' experiences ... if you GROW inside yourself, you will evolve. Your attractions will evolve.

 

I'll give you an example for the sake of discussion. Say you are a wealthy African American male and your preference is for thin, educated, caucasion, red-heads. You are never in this world going to make a case to me that this dude was "born" with these preferences. They come as a result of many factors - social status, societal standards of beauty, social circle, aesthetic preferences, emotional experiences with various groups at a young age, family dynamics, etc etc etc. As his experiences grow (e.g. perhaps if he travels the world) his preferences may expand a bit.

 

I don't think you should date anyone you are not attracted to. I do think you should start a more internal, spiritual journey of reflection where you walk away from these negative, gender-biased scripts you have running in your head and examine what is really important to you in life. On the other side, if you really go on a growth-journey and introspect, you will be changed. What you must have will be clearer. What are "nice to haves" will become more translucent and less intrusive on the bigger picture. And what you are attracted to will evolve.

[itsallgrand]

Awesome post, Ms. Darcy.

 

That is so true about attraction evolving.

 

Though I've noticed, for some people, it doesn't. That seems to me to be a dead end road, where a person is constantly repeating the past over and over again. On my observations.

 

I do think it is tied in to overall growth as a person.

[Batya33]

Batya,

 

My main point is these guys are being too negative: many of them have this belief that women only want rich, tall, and aggressive men. While the facts are women date all kinds of men. We tell women to settle all the time - for better or worse.

 

Had the OP been a woman, she would be told to stop focusing on looks immediately. Most would tell her " physical attraction" should not be a priority at all.

 

A lot of men here think that the world is stacked up against them: just not true.

 

Congrats on finding someone later in life! You are very lucky!

 

I completely disagree. I was told again and again never to settle and that of course physical attraction mattered. I was told to go have a baby by myself (no thanks). I think both genders are told not to be picky about looks as far as needing someone on your arm who others find attractive but I don't see people downplay the importance of chemistry and attraction.

 

All else equal I think it's harder out there for women in their mid 30s and older who want biological children than it is for men. I think that will change as it gets less expensive and easier to freeze eggs. I've already seen a positive result with that approach with a friend of mine who is getting married soon in her early 40s (she froze her eggs in her late 30s when she was single). I think it's awful to tell someone to settle and I don't see that happening much if at all except from negative people I suppose -and anyway we're not sheep -we don't blindly follow all dating advice thank goodness.

[Ms Darcy]

That is so true about attraction evolving.

 

Though I've noticed, for some people, it doesn't. That seems to me to be a dead end road, where a person is constantly repeating the past over and over again. On my observations.

 

I do think it is tied in to overall growth as a person.

 

Oh I agree. And we've all seen posters who come back year after year with the same problems. They get their heart ripped out by basically the same mentally unstable or emotionally unavailable hot girl/guy over and over again and can't figure out why "men are cheaters" or "women are golddiggers." Those folks are definitely not growing.

 

In some ways, they are regressing.

[pl3asehelp]

Why do you assume single moms your age are in 'way worse condition' than you? No idea what you could base this idea on unless you just have a negative view of women in general or an unrealistic perception of yourself. These women are your EQUALS.

 

Also, not everyone is so impressed by your career and salary as you probably hope.

[radiohead20]

Why do you assume single moms your age are in 'way worse condition' than you? No idea what you could base this idea on unless you just have a negative view of women in general or an unrealistic perception of yourself. These women are your EQUALS.

 

Also, not everyone is so impressed by your career and salary as you probably hope.

 

I don't assume. I know many single mothers (most from high school) that are still in the process of recovering from divorce, are having many financial difficulties and constantly battling the court system. Due to this there are many obstacles in their lives that could consistently interfere with developing a relationship. I am not generalizing to ALL women, but of the 15-20 women I know in this situation, this is the case. I would be difficult to date them without getting caught up in all the stress. I do not have this. I have a good relationship with the mother, it was unplanned and not the result of a nasty divorce/long term relationship. we both are very even-keeled and flexible.

 

Now if a women came to me in her 20's that was a single mother, had her "stuff" together, had more than one day or two a week to have alone time and date, and did not have numerous stress/emotional damage from the recent breakup/divorce I would be more than happy to consider, but I know, based on the evidence I have seen in my life and just using logical deduction, that these are rarities. In fact, I may even prefer women like these who are more versed and used to kids. These women are my "equals", if you care to objectify it. It doesnt mean I would ONLY date these women.

 

And I don't care that people are impressed by it or not, I do it for myself because I love to do it. I thrive on being a successful person, it is what drives me. And yes, most people are in fact impressed by it, as it is an indicator of me being able to pursue one of my passions and do it successfully at a young age. I mentioned it as a supporting argument for being a successful young professional.

 

I do agree with ms darcy that having a straight line view of attraction is limiting and that attraction evolves. I also believe that, beyond that, most of do not even know for sure exactly what we are attracted too. We can say we want this and that and be dead set on that, but then someone will come along that is completely different, maybe the opposite of what we swore we would not date, and they can change our lives.

[Blue Spiral]

Nobody is saying a person shouldn't have standards - but rather that those standards need to be based not simply on physical attraction. Thinking "I just need to find a girl/guy who is 'nice' and I am attracted to" is the thinking of a 12 year old. If that is all that you require, then the relationship is not going to last.

 

So, in order to get a relationship and make it work, you need more requirements, as opposed to less?

 

It seems to me that low-maintenance is the better way to go. But I'm apparently twelve, so...

[Blue Spiral]

A question for the men in this thread: have you ever experienced what the ladies are describing? Have you ever been in a situation where you weren't attracted to a woman, but further exposure to her personality made her more attractive to you? I'm curious to know if I'm an outlier, or if this is something that commonly happens.

[Batya33]

So, in order to get a relationship and make it work, you need more requirements, as opposed to less?

 

It seems to me that low-maintenance is the better way to go. But I'm apparently twelve, so...

 

I don't think it's about more or less -it's about basic requirements and finding the right balance for you as far as what deserves the most focus. When it comes to long term -marriage or a marital-like commitment then the "she's nice and I'm attracted to her" is probably a bit too high risk to count on it being a lasting, healthy relationship. I think there are plenty of things to be low-maintenance about -probably different for everyone -and no need to be "high maintenance" -just about knowing yourself and your values and standards. Far different requirements if the goal is someone you can go on dates with every week with no potential for a commitment -then nice/attracted to/ likes to do similar activities -could work just fine!

[goodheartlady]

The OP has all these biases against single moms his own age, and yet hopes women would not judge him for being a single dad?

 

Am I missing something? You want others to embrace something about you that you would reject in another person?!

 

It is like the fat kid in elementary school who sits at his lunch table yelling, " no chubbies here! I don't want chubbie friends!" No wonder he ends up alone!

[IAmFCA]

Oh I agree. And we've all seen posters who come back year after year with the same problems. They get their heart ripped out by basically the same mentally unstable or emotionally unavailable hot girl/guy over and over again and can't figure out why "men are cheaters" or "women are golddiggers." Those folks are definitely not growing.

 

In some ways, they are regressing.

 

Growth is hard hard work. It can be painful, intellectually and emotionally challenging, and it can turn upside down one's sense of reality. I think we often avoid growth until we are ready to handle it. And I think many just don't have or find the tools to look at themselves that plainly. And finally, there always is the comfort of simply blaming others for the way we are and repeating patterns because that is our destiny.

 

Then why ask for advice? Who knows. Because we think there is a magic bullet perhaps? ENA has taught me much. One thing I hope it is helping me do is remember to hold my tongue and teach only as much as someone is ready to learn. I doubt I have learned it yet, but ENA helps me practice.

[IAmFCA]

Weighing in re single moms because I can't help myself:

 

(1) Most anyone who is battle tested has more strength than someone who isn't. Single moms often fall into this category.

(2) The single moms I know have professional careers, own their own homes, have healthy relationships or are trying to, and are pretty cute too. Time is the biggest issue: May be available just one night per weekend, or every other week or weekend, or in little bits during the week for a meal, or at other times with a babysitter etc. There are fewer overnights and much more planning required. We are not in our 20s, granted, and that may make a big difference.

(3) The men who date us appreciate the amount of responsibility we manage. They get on our calendars in creative ways: I have been grocery shopping at 6 am, on car trips for work, running, weight lifting, walking, to the pharmacy, out for an hour's worth of tea or cocktails, and to the diner for breakfast, all as ways of spending time with a romantic interest. There are lots of ways to enjoy someone's company.

 

And absolutely, do not date us if this lifestyle isn't for you. Thank you for weeding us out so we don't have to.

[superfan]

So, in order to get a relationship and make it work, you need more requirements, as opposed to less?

 

It seems to me that low-maintenance is the better way to go. But I'm apparently twelve, so...

 

It isn't about the 'amount' of requirements but rather the substance of them and you seem to have missed the point of what I said. It depends on what you are looking for.

 

You have said yourself that you are not looking for a relationship and certainly not one that is going to go the distance. You have said numerous times that you are really only interested in casual hook ups or FWBs. In which case, finding someone 'nice' and attractive is pretty much all you need for that. Go for it.

 

However, for someone (like the OP) who is looking for a committed relationship, you need more than just 'nice' and 'cute'. You need shared interests, a common values system, similar goals in life, etc.

 

If I wanted to date a guy who was simply just 'cute' and 'nice', I am sure I could have found one LONG before I met my husband. In fact, a couple of my exes fit those descriptions. But we didn't like the same things, or had different political views or religious opinions or values, etc. It was obvious that in the context of looking for a committed relationship, 'nice' and 'cute' alone weren't going to cut it.

 

An example: I had one ex who was obsessed with building sports cars and computers. I couldn't care less about those things. He was constantly bitter and negative about everything, and we didn't really enjoy the same activities. Yes, I found him attractive, and yes he was a nice guy, but the other stuff pretty much ensured the relationship was doomed to failure. We still keep in touch as friends.

 

Another ex I have was someone I worked with. Again, I found him cute and nice, but we had WAY different political values and different goals in life. He ended up going into the army and that is something I could never do as a spouse (be an army wife), so yeah...cute and nice? Not enough.

 

Unless you are looking for casual

 

Or you are a pre-teen passing notes back and forth between your lockers.

[chr8st8na]

True what MSDarcy said... attraction does evolve.. When i was younger I would never have given someone a chance if he was (a) loud (b) religious and © a republican. But now Im dating someone who falls under all those three lol... The world really has a lot to offer someone if they work on themselves and has a lot less to do with them lowering their standards.

[Blue Spiral]

You have said yourself that you are not looking for a relationship and certainly not one that is going to go the distance. You have said numerous times that you are really only interested in casual hook ups or FWBs. In which case, finding someone 'nice' and attractive is pretty much all you need for that. Go for it.

 

However, for someone (like the OP) who is looking for a committed relationship, you need more than just 'nice' and 'cute'. You need shared interests, a common values system, similar goals in life, etc.

 

Actually, I was looking for the same thing when I was in relationship-mode. I didn't care about any of that other stuff. The women did, though, so they ditched me.

[Ms Darcy]

Growth is hard hard work. It can be painful, intellectually and emotionally challenging, and it can turn upside down one's sense of reality. I think we often avoid growth until we are ready to handle it. And I think many just don't have or find the tools to look at themselves that plainly. And finally, there always is the comfort of simply blaming others for the way we are and repeating patterns because that is our destiny.

 

Very very wise.

[Lonewing]

A question for the men in this thread: have you ever experienced what the ladies are describing? Have you ever been in a situation where you weren't attracted to a woman, but further exposure to her personality made her more attractive to you? I'm curious to know if I'm an outlier, or if this is something that commonly happens.

 

No. But I have had the opposite - a wonderful personality, but a decline in attraction over time.

[goodheartlady]

Blue spiral,

 

From your various posts, it sounds like that your primary interest in women is sex and physical attraction. You could care less about other parts of the relationship - emotions, etc. I recall you made the comment that when you are in a relationship, you don't even really want to talk to the person.

 

If your top priority is sex - which is fine, whatever suits you, why not just work with professionals? Have you thought about that? Why go through the pretense of dating etc? Just go for a professional transaction and get your needs met.

[Batya33]

Blue spiral,

 

From your various posts, it sounds like that your primary interest in women is sex and physical attraction. You could care less about other parts of the relationship - emotions, etc. I recall you made the comment that when you are in a relationship, you don't even really want to talk to the person.

 

If your top priority is sex - which is fine, whatever suits you, why not just work with professionals? Have you thought about that? Why go through the pretense of dating etc? Just go for a professional transaction and get your needs met.

 

I'm going to jump in here and say I don't think it's so black and white. I think there are a lot of gray areas that defy labeling or categorization when it comes to how people interact and what they're looking for in terms of sexual interactions. Sure, someone who is just looking to have intercourse with a complete stranger might do better going to a professional who is screened for STDs but I don't think that's what Blue Spiral is talking about. I do think that people who are uncomfortable with having casual sex with strangers or acquaintances use inapt euphemisms like "FWB" because they want some kind of label that masks what's really going on but I don't think that necessarily means that someone whose focus is sex should be with a prostitute.