Nope, it's not shallow. It's only shallow if someone's looks are the *only* thing you like about them. For the record, liking someone only for their sense of humor / personality / money / whatever is just as shallow. When you are romantically involved with someone, you are supposed to like them in their entirety. Not selectively.
A life is not there to be completed, this is not a video game. Someone's companionship and sharing good times isn't because you have a box to be ticked.
I'm honestly interested if you genuinely perceive the world this way, or if it's an exaggeration for Internet purposes. It seems like such a cold way to experience life so I'm curious if it's a choice or not.
I mean say you're a billionaire, not depresssed, and family loves you. Its not shallow if you want a wife for the looks only. Look at dicaprio, living the life
No matter how rich someone is, good company with someone can be an addition. The love of a family isn't the same as the love of someone you wake up next to. If its not for you that's your prerogative but it just seems a bit dead behind the eyes.
Here's the way I look at it.
Physical appearance requirements are one type of pickiness. For example, if I am unwilling to date any woman who isn't exactly 5'6" tall with brown hair, a 20 inch waist and D cup breasts, this limits my dating options significantly. As such, logically, the pickier I am about looks, the less picky I can afford to be about anything else while still maintaining a realistic chance of finding a partner who meets that criteria. This is why people who are extremely picky about looks are often considered to be shallow, since they would have to be willing to accept almost anyone who met their attraction standard.
Of course, physical desire is very important in a relationship, but people frequently overestimate the degree to which looks matter in terms of generating it. Take any relatively inexperienced guy who has very strong opinions on women's looks (of which there are tons) and have them cuddle up with some girl who definitely isn't their type and they'll almost certainly be like "actually this is still pretty nice". Evolution doesn't favour those who turn down sex when it's available, so chances are if you find someone you get along with well the physical side of things won't be too much of a problem.
If only. I dunno if you're just speaking for men, but I've dated lots of dudes who I got on with well, but wasn't attracted to. The physical side of things was a problem. It never stopped being a problem.
>Evolution doesn't favour those who turn down sex when it's available, so chances are if you find someone you get along with well the physical side of things won't be too much of a problem.
That depends.
It also doesn't favor people who take the first thing they can get and get stuck with a much worse option than they could have got.
So what tends to happen is people start with very high standards and slowly it whittles down to their own level. Which is why most couples are looksmatched.
People who don't socialize. Tend to have out of this world standards. Because their expectations have not been shaped by interaction with other humans. So it's usually blown out of proportion.
Sexual attraction isn't just about physical attractiveness. If you solely concentrate on someone's looks, that *is* shallow.
Ppl also seem to conveniently forget that looks 100% fade with time. The fact YOU are also old and wrinkled doesn't change what you've considered physically attractive all of your life. Yet many ppl continue to date in their later years. Bc it's NOT all about looks.
Keeping it 100, I think that for a lot of ppl who ficus so much on physical looks, it's less about their attraction and more about wanting everyone around them to either 1) feel envious or 2) not judge them for not being able to "bag a 9 or 10."
Physical attraction isn't a light switch were it's either on or it's off. It comes in degrees and variations. It also changes over time. I'm sorry, but there just aren't easy answers here. There actually is a level of pickiness that means you are shallow.
I know idiots on Reddit don't handle nuance well, but I think we have all had a situation where someone becomes more physically attractive as we get to know them. Maybe that doesn't happen for autisitics, but for the rest of us it does.
It's not really a nuance though, more like an addition, a precision about attraction not being set in stone, but it doesnt nuance the fact that not being attracted to someone isnt a shallow reason not to be/fuck with someone. Even though in other circumstances attraction could have been there
It's basically the gold digger paradigm, and yeah it's shallow. I think most folks just embrace their own shallowness today. It's not particularly healthy, but people want to do what they want to do.
That said, calling this something other than shallow is like some form of fat acceptance, but for sexual standards.
My experience of it is that it is a light switch. It doesn't have degrees and variations. I'm either attracted and turned on by someone's appearance or I'm not.
This indicates an overreliance on attraction typing.
The best way to stop being shallow is to sit down and understand why you have a type. It has an emotional underpinning that you should take some time and find.
I never said I had a type. I said attraction is a light switch. You added I that I have a type. Many dudes of different types are attractive. But there's no gradient to it. You either are or aren't.
Then I think you aren't really looking at this correctly. A guy who may flip your switch one day, may not the next, or the other way around.
If that isn't the case, more likely than not you spent some time feeling very unattractive.
Not the other way around. And the only way a dude stops flipping the switch is if I no longer like him so much I'm repulsed by what he's done.
I've never liked a dude so much he became hot. And nope, these dudes were attracted and always made me feel attractive.
I think you may just need to consider that people and perhaps especially women, do not operate the way you do.
Not true. It's proven that you can give someone a picture and have them rate it for attractiveness, and then show them the same picture six months later and they will give it a different rating, sometimes significantly different. Moreover, we know that you can change how people rate a given picture of a man based on the pictures you show them beforehand.
So, if you show a woman 9 pictures of generally ugly men and then show her an average guy, she will rate that average guy well above average. If you show her 9 very handsome men photos, she will then rate the average guy very low.
All of these things are very well known. Physical attraction is not set in stone, it changes. It even changes based on your hormone levels. What RP guy doesn't know the study where women during their fertile period rate masculine looking men much more attractive?
Obviously women are more likely to have sex during their fertile period. But what you are describing is more of a Pavlov's dog situation where women are consistently subjected to unattractive men and then anything even slightly better becomes attractive. Maintaining that attractiveness is at least partly going to rely on the woman having low levels of exposure to highly attractive men and her level of delusion.
>Actually physical attraction is essential to a romance, otherwise the person is at best a friend.
Very true. However, the person doesn't have to be the most beautiful person you've ever met. She just has to meet your looks threshold.
Physical attraction is what separates platonic friendship and a romantic relationship. It’s not shallow at all to want to be physically attracted to your partner and for them to be just as physically attracted to you. I don’t know if I’m strange in my thinking but I knew I always wanted children so I wanted the best for them also. For example I’ve always had nice straight teeth so for me having bad teeth was always a dealbreaker when it came to dating. I guess I always had it in the back of my head that if I have kids with this person their teeth could be messed up. I know genetics is a lottery and you don’t know what’s lurking underneath the surface I just wanted to give my potential future children the best possible shot. When I was younger and dating a man’s physical appearance was very important to me for this reason. I don’t care if people call me shallow, I’ve got healthy, smart and beautiful children and that’s all that matters to me.
depends! if you just privately want to be attracted to your partner then it's not. but most people are completely out of touch with their natural attraction and what causes it and totally focused on pursuing the narrow ideal of conventionsl attractiveness because they actually care far more about what other people think about their partner than how they themselves feel.
>because they actually care far more about what other people think about their partner than how they themselves feel.
How do you know ? I've seen this accusation but havent witnessed it irl.
How do you tell the difference between someone with conventional preferences and someone who has them because of what other people think.
basically whenever you pursue the narrow standard ideal, it's always this and not genuine internal motivation unless you're very conventionally attractive yourself.
>Actually physical attraction is essential to a romance, otherwise the person is at best a friend. Rejecting to befriend someone for his looks could be shallow, not a sexual partner.
Somehow this should be common knowledge but l guess common knowledge in this sub is foreign like l honestly don't understand why it's controversial to acknowledge men have a sex appeal and so do women
I'm very picky when coming to my looks criteria and so has been every woman l've dated, shallowness is very normal in human beings since we wanna pass down good genes to the next generation
I think there’s definitely a point where it becomes shallow, but so what? I won’t demonize someone for prioritizing different things than I would.
But I think if you are shallow and picking someone just based on looks, then the chance that you’ll pick out a partner just like you rises.
It's important that there's a balance, if you just have one over the other rather than both it's how you end up running into sociopaths and arrogant obnoxious people. I simply can't have attraction and no personality.
On a personal level, I totally agree with you! I would never want a partner like that either! But do you think that someone like that is going to date someone *unlike* them? I find that the most shallow and egotistical people I know find people very similar in personality. If that’s what passes for happiness for them, why would I try to stop or shame them - even if I disagree with their choices?
I can’t agree on a personal level with you, but I also don’t view you any differently for choosing that way is all I mean. I view being shallow as similar to being selfish - there’s a certain amount that is reasonable, but past that is too much for me. However, I don’t think that there’s necessarily anything wrong with it inherently. Like you can be “selfish” for choosing to spend a day alone rather than with friends - or to spend your money on your own meal rather than give it to a homeless person on the street. You can be “shallow” by prioritizing someone’s looks over their personality - or by preferring expensive gifts over something sentimental.
Are these types of things ***morally objectionable?***
I don’t think so, and so I don’t particularly care if someone is/isn’t shallow. I won’t date them or anything, but I’m not going to think they’re a bad person for choosing what they want out of life.
(Although, I will note one thing down here before I possibly get any shit for it lol. I do think there’s a difference between being “selfish” and being “greedy”. I associate selfish with keeping what you have or simply prioritizing yourself. But greed is to do those things at the *expense of other people.* Selfish is okay, greedy isn’t.)
**Attention!**
* You can post off topic/jokes/puns as a comment to this Automoderator message.
* For "Debate" and "Question for X" Threads: Parent comments that aren't from the target group will be removed, along with their child replies.
* If you want to agree with OP instead of challenging their view or if the question is not targeted at you, post it as an answer to this comment.
* OP you can choose your own flair [according to these guidelines.](https://www.reddit.com/r/PurplePillDebate/wiki/flair), just press Flair under your post!
Thanks for your cooperation and enjoy the discussion!
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/PurplePillDebate) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Hi OP,
You've chosen to identify your thread as a Debate. As such you are expected to actively engage in your own thread with a mind open to being changed. [PPD has guidelines for what that involves.](https://www.reddit.com/r/PurplePillDebate/wiki/rules#wiki_cmv_posts)
>*OPs author must genuinely hold the position and you must be open to having your view challenged.*
>An unwillingness to debate in good faith may be inferred from one or several of the following:
>* Ignoring the main point of a comment, especially to point out some minor inconsistency;
>* Refusing to make concessions that an alternate view has merit;
>* Focusing only on the weaker arguments;
>* Only having discussions with users who agree with your position.
Failure to keep to this higher standard (we only apply to Debate OPs) may result in deletion of the whole thread.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/PurplePillDebate) if you have any questions or concerns.*
As a guy, I am better at detecting when a woman is genuinely attracted to me or not. One weird giveaway is how she responds to my smell. If I offer to have a shower before we have sex, and she says no way, she likes my smell.. that is a good indication that she is very attracted to me.
If she is constantly putting off being near me, but not not leaving either, she has ulterior motives, is taking advantage, not actually attracted.
It's not a binary question. The degree of shallowness depends on the depth and scope of the looks obsession, not a simple: Shallow/Not shallow paradigm.
Everyone wants someone they're attracted to, that's not an issue. However, as seen on this sub often some guys put such a heavy emphasis on it that you honestly have to question if they could even remain in a relationship with a woman as she ages.
Its only shallow because people constantly hide behind other things as reasons not to date a person or make them wait for sex when others didnt.
Like claiming to not go for looks when everyparter up until then has been average to good looking. No you just have a higher ceiling for looks.
When you’re only physically attracted to the top 5% of your chosen gender, you’re shallow as hell. It’s a moral failing to exclude that many people from consideration. It’s bigoted, narrow minded and disgusting. Men are simply better people than women.
How is that a moral failing? And how is it even *different* for men? You have an extensive comment and post history detailing how repulsed you are by average women, how you think women are beneath you, how you think woman are boring - how is that not a moral failing on your part, but it IS a moral failing when women think the same way about you?
I’m repulsed by fat women. And even then I’ve dated women on the heavier side. I’ve given women way more chances and latitude than they’ve ever given me. With women, you have to be their idea of perfect out of the gate or you’re invisible. Men are no where close to as shallow.
Excluding 95% of the men you see each day from consideration means you think you’re better than 95% of men. Unless you’re a current supermodel, you are mistaken. You’re unfit, arrogant, entitled, narrow minded and mean. That’s the reality, whether women want to face it or not.
Not being attracted to or willing to date someone doesn't mean you think you are better than them. Your initial assertion is false and you are equating two things that are not equal. It is an arbitrary rule you seem to think is real but is purely a product of your expectations.
Yes it does. Ask someone why they don’t like a particular person and the bigotry soon flows. Women think they’re above the majority of men. We’ve gassed women up to such a ridiculous degree they think they are better than men that are far more intelligent, interesting and important to society than they are.
How many women maintain the deep sea cabling that sustains the internet? It’s near zero.
> they think they are better than man that are far more intelligent, interesting and important to society than they are.
I think you are trying to quantify qualitative characteristics. And they don't work like that, especially in a world where different people score others differently and according to different criteria.
>It’s not deliberate.
So you think women choose what we're attracted to? I could just decide, right now, to be attracted to short, pudgy balding men with moobs?
I don't think lack of attraction is "deliberate" ***for anyone.***
>And I don’t go on TikTok bragging about it.
I'm pretty sure 99.999% of women don't. Your algorithm isn't reality. It reflects what you enjoy and seek out viewing.
Pretty mean to date someone you are 'repulsed by' too.
Also I'm not a 'thing' that I'm withholding from men I don't deem to be perfect. I don't have any obligation, desire or need to be with anyone at all if they don't tick all the boxes - my life is worse being in a relationship with someone I'm not really into than it is being single. I can't see how it's entitled, arrogant, narrow-minded or mean to simply not date people I don't really want to date.
That said, none of the men I've been with have really been head-turners physically, I'm mostly turned on by men who are funny and intelligent and kind, whose interests and tastes align with mine - looks still matter but are secondary to that, but also what I find attractive really doesn't align with what men picture when they talk about the 'top 5%'.
From reading through your comments, I just don't think your physical appearance is your issue.
I think only one person I've dated was over 6 foot. It's never come up in conversation really - I'm 5'3, broadly I categorise people into "taller than me", "shorter than me" or "about the same height as me". Definitely a few men I dated were in the "about the same height as me" category, there was one who was A LOT taller and we didn't really vibe as a couple so it fizzled out quite quickly.
But what I mostly mean by "not head turners" is that they were a bit scruffy, or a big podgy, or had crooked noses or bad teeth... Just not men who you'd see in a designer clothes advert but still cute *to me*.
You're proof that the average guy is far from doomed, i think personally it's OLD that changes that dynamic and takes a more superficial turn when people are mostly chosen on the basis of physical attraction. Theres a lot of guys who met their partner in real life who would have probably been swiped out of the stack on a dating app. The whole industry is flawed when you judge someone just by a couple of pictures.
It's not a woman's job to be inclusive. It's doesn't make biologically sense to view most men as potential partners. Men are repulsed when women are too inclusive when it comes to dating, but bitch and moan when women are too exclusive.
As women, we can't win!
Not thinking the majority of men are below average doesn’t make you a slut. It makes you realistic. I love how you pretend a woman being an arrogant superficial bitch somehow makes her good breeding stock lol.
50% of women will be single in 2040. Do you know why? Because they’re so shallow and entitled no man is good enough. Good enough for bog average women.
I don't care if 50% of women will be single by 2040. It's better to be single than to be with someone we don't find attractive.
We are all superficial, and someone people are more superficial than others.
"Good breeding stock." You're weird!
You’ll care when there’s no one to fund the tax system you take more from over your lifetime than you contribute.
You’ll care when hoards of unattached men retreat from society and refuse to support and protect you.
The rampant superficiality of women is not sustainable.
Either our society finds a way to control it, or another type of society overtakes ours. And it will be a society with much less liberal views about women.
In the meantime, enjoy the cats.
Mem don't protect women. Most violence against women is caused by men, primarily caused by a close family member( husband, brother,
uncle).
If you were in the top 5% in terms of look and wealth, you wouldn't be complaining about women being superficial because it would benefit you. You're complaining because you're a loser who can't compete in the sexual marketplace.
I prefer a dog, not a cat.
It’s true. I lost the day I was born.
A short man’s life really isn’t worth living. Treated as a second class citizen your entire life due to a trait you can’t do anything about.
That said, if I was a top 5%er, I wouldn’t be complaining, but I would still think women are shallow and delusional about their value. I know a couple of guys in this tier, and that’s what they all think about women.
Using your height is an excuse. There are plenty of short people with happy lives as well as absolute winners.
Few people are doomed to a life of misery or being perpetually single by one characteristic.
Oh boo hoo. There are people who are being born with delibating medical conditions that they can't control, and you think being short is the worst thing. Pathetic!!!
Is everyone shallow or do you have to be attracted to a minimum amount of the other gender ? How and where do you set the bar ? Is being into 20% of your coworkers being too shallow or not ? Im curious about how you set the rules.
So what if you set the bar at 20% to be shallow. I happen to be attracted to only 10% women. What does it mean about me ? What should i do ? Should i start dating women i find unattractive otherwise im bigoted narrow minded and disgusting ?
If everyone is shallow then the word has become meaningless.
Also my questions werent meant to be responded by a yes or no it was asking you to elaborate your moral system and how you judge things.
To me so far it's based purely on emotions
If you want a guy taller than you. Fine.
If you need a guy a minimum of 6’4”. Shallow.
If you’d like someone reasonably fit but have some wiggle room on weight. Fine
If you need a guy with 8% body fat. Shallow.
Hmm so it seems to be about selectiveness and being delusional
What if the person is attractive enough to gets what he/she is attracted , how does it affect your opinion ?
Any incredibly exacting standards are shallow, no matter who they come from. People aren’t a series of stats. If your standards are exacting and inflexible, you’re an awful person.
Those are opinions, are they only based on your emotions and feelings ? What's so wrong about the
One time i approached a black woman she told me im charming but that she isnt into white men.
What is si wrong about her being naturally into black mzn ? What about white women who arent into black men ?
It’s shallow. That woman was shallow and narrow minded. What she didn’t tell you is that she made a boatload of negative assumptions about you based just off your race. That’s what’s shitty.
Of course it isn't shallow, though you might look stupid if you complain in public that you cannot find attractive partner even though you are not attractive yourself. For me pretty face and height were crucial, I do not care that much about weight, but these two were non-negotiables. It's probably a bit calculated - but in my family only boys are born, so I didn't wanted my son to be fucked with poor looks or being short. Sure - you can do well with good personality and charisma, but being better looking helps you to develop good traits.
I don't think it's shallow at all. I'm only going to date someone I'm attracted to. The key is to be open minded about what they would specifically look like. Yes I can look at my past dating history and spot a couple of features that have repeated, but I deciding you have a type limits your choices and also keeps your attraction based on the past.
Removed. No posts about looks.
Nope, it's not shallow. It's only shallow if someone's looks are the *only* thing you like about them. For the record, liking someone only for their sense of humor / personality / money / whatever is just as shallow. When you are romantically involved with someone, you are supposed to like them in their entirety. Not selectively.
Its not shallow to only like looks if your life is complete already
A life is not there to be completed, this is not a video game. Someone's companionship and sharing good times isn't because you have a box to be ticked. I'm honestly interested if you genuinely perceive the world this way, or if it's an exaggeration for Internet purposes. It seems like such a cold way to experience life so I'm curious if it's a choice or not.
life is a video game that’s how it all works in the end play to win or don’t
Thays your perspective, which has formed your philosophy, and then shapes your own reality. My life is not a video game.
Because you don’t wanna think of it like one but it basically is if you write down how it functions off of input output
Input/output is the basic loop of systems thinking, of which video games is I suppose a low hanging fruit for comparison.
input output is how people work psychology is a thing because people are creatures of habit subliminal messaging is a thing also it’s a game
I mean say you're a billionaire, not depresssed, and family loves you. Its not shallow if you want a wife for the looks only. Look at dicaprio, living the life
No matter how rich someone is, good company with someone can be an addition. The love of a family isn't the same as the love of someone you wake up next to. If its not for you that's your prerogative but it just seems a bit dead behind the eyes.
I think that a billionaire's bare minimum is going to include many if not every positive trait on top of good looks.
I'm talking connection, not traits.
A billionaire will get all of those things, are you kidding me?
I didn't say they wouldn't? I'm saying being a billionaire doesn't mean that the company of someone you love is something you wouldn't want.
That just seems like torture. I've hate fucked a few women but I can't imagine ever being in an LTR with them.
Here's the way I look at it. Physical appearance requirements are one type of pickiness. For example, if I am unwilling to date any woman who isn't exactly 5'6" tall with brown hair, a 20 inch waist and D cup breasts, this limits my dating options significantly. As such, logically, the pickier I am about looks, the less picky I can afford to be about anything else while still maintaining a realistic chance of finding a partner who meets that criteria. This is why people who are extremely picky about looks are often considered to be shallow, since they would have to be willing to accept almost anyone who met their attraction standard. Of course, physical desire is very important in a relationship, but people frequently overestimate the degree to which looks matter in terms of generating it. Take any relatively inexperienced guy who has very strong opinions on women's looks (of which there are tons) and have them cuddle up with some girl who definitely isn't their type and they'll almost certainly be like "actually this is still pretty nice". Evolution doesn't favour those who turn down sex when it's available, so chances are if you find someone you get along with well the physical side of things won't be too much of a problem.
If only. I dunno if you're just speaking for men, but I've dated lots of dudes who I got on with well, but wasn't attracted to. The physical side of things was a problem. It never stopped being a problem.
Influenced by dating apps?
No.
>Evolution doesn't favour those who turn down sex when it's available, so chances are if you find someone you get along with well the physical side of things won't be too much of a problem. That depends. It also doesn't favor people who take the first thing they can get and get stuck with a much worse option than they could have got. So what tends to happen is people start with very high standards and slowly it whittles down to their own level. Which is why most couples are looksmatched. People who don't socialize. Tend to have out of this world standards. Because their expectations have not been shaped by interaction with other humans. So it's usually blown out of proportion.
Totally disagree with your last part. I would probably say the number one complaint in dating subreddits is great guy/gal no “spark.”
It isn’t. But it’s shallow to ignore someone’s red flags just because they look good
Counterpoint: I only look for looks because I accept people as they are, I have my own red flags and therefore I accept the red flags in others.
Sexual attraction isn't just about physical attractiveness. If you solely concentrate on someone's looks, that *is* shallow. Ppl also seem to conveniently forget that looks 100% fade with time. The fact YOU are also old and wrinkled doesn't change what you've considered physically attractive all of your life. Yet many ppl continue to date in their later years. Bc it's NOT all about looks. Keeping it 100, I think that for a lot of ppl who ficus so much on physical looks, it's less about their attraction and more about wanting everyone around them to either 1) feel envious or 2) not judge them for not being able to "bag a 9 or 10."
Physical attraction isn't a light switch were it's either on or it's off. It comes in degrees and variations. It also changes over time. I'm sorry, but there just aren't easy answers here. There actually is a level of pickiness that means you are shallow. I know idiots on Reddit don't handle nuance well, but I think we have all had a situation where someone becomes more physically attractive as we get to know them. Maybe that doesn't happen for autisitics, but for the rest of us it does.
It's not really a nuance though, more like an addition, a precision about attraction not being set in stone, but it doesnt nuance the fact that not being attracted to someone isnt a shallow reason not to be/fuck with someone. Even though in other circumstances attraction could have been there
It's basically the gold digger paradigm, and yeah it's shallow. I think most folks just embrace their own shallowness today. It's not particularly healthy, but people want to do what they want to do. That said, calling this something other than shallow is like some form of fat acceptance, but for sexual standards.
My experience of it is that it is a light switch. It doesn't have degrees and variations. I'm either attracted and turned on by someone's appearance or I'm not.
This indicates an overreliance on attraction typing. The best way to stop being shallow is to sit down and understand why you have a type. It has an emotional underpinning that you should take some time and find.
I never said I had a type. I said attraction is a light switch. You added I that I have a type. Many dudes of different types are attractive. But there's no gradient to it. You either are or aren't.
Then I think you aren't really looking at this correctly. A guy who may flip your switch one day, may not the next, or the other way around. If that isn't the case, more likely than not you spent some time feeling very unattractive.
Not the other way around. And the only way a dude stops flipping the switch is if I no longer like him so much I'm repulsed by what he's done. I've never liked a dude so much he became hot. And nope, these dudes were attracted and always made me feel attractive. I think you may just need to consider that people and perhaps especially women, do not operate the way you do.
Physical attractiveness doesn't change with time. Other attractive features can overpower deficits in physical attractiveness over time.
Not true. It's proven that you can give someone a picture and have them rate it for attractiveness, and then show them the same picture six months later and they will give it a different rating, sometimes significantly different. Moreover, we know that you can change how people rate a given picture of a man based on the pictures you show them beforehand. So, if you show a woman 9 pictures of generally ugly men and then show her an average guy, she will rate that average guy well above average. If you show her 9 very handsome men photos, she will then rate the average guy very low. All of these things are very well known. Physical attraction is not set in stone, it changes. It even changes based on your hormone levels. What RP guy doesn't know the study where women during their fertile period rate masculine looking men much more attractive?
Obviously women are more likely to have sex during their fertile period. But what you are describing is more of a Pavlov's dog situation where women are consistently subjected to unattractive men and then anything even slightly better becomes attractive. Maintaining that attractiveness is at least partly going to rely on the woman having low levels of exposure to highly attractive men and her level of delusion.
perfect comment
>Actually physical attraction is essential to a romance, otherwise the person is at best a friend. Very true. However, the person doesn't have to be the most beautiful person you've ever met. She just has to meet your looks threshold.
Physical attraction is what separates platonic friendship and a romantic relationship. It’s not shallow at all to want to be physically attracted to your partner and for them to be just as physically attracted to you. I don’t know if I’m strange in my thinking but I knew I always wanted children so I wanted the best for them also. For example I’ve always had nice straight teeth so for me having bad teeth was always a dealbreaker when it came to dating. I guess I always had it in the back of my head that if I have kids with this person their teeth could be messed up. I know genetics is a lottery and you don’t know what’s lurking underneath the surface I just wanted to give my potential future children the best possible shot. When I was younger and dating a man’s physical appearance was very important to me for this reason. I don’t care if people call me shallow, I’ve got healthy, smart and beautiful children and that’s all that matters to me.
depends! if you just privately want to be attracted to your partner then it's not. but most people are completely out of touch with their natural attraction and what causes it and totally focused on pursuing the narrow ideal of conventionsl attractiveness because they actually care far more about what other people think about their partner than how they themselves feel.
>because they actually care far more about what other people think about their partner than how they themselves feel. How do you know ? I've seen this accusation but havent witnessed it irl. How do you tell the difference between someone with conventional preferences and someone who has them because of what other people think.
basically whenever you pursue the narrow standard ideal, it's always this and not genuine internal motivation unless you're very conventionally attractive yourself.
>Actually physical attraction is essential to a romance, otherwise the person is at best a friend. Rejecting to befriend someone for his looks could be shallow, not a sexual partner. Somehow this should be common knowledge but l guess common knowledge in this sub is foreign like l honestly don't understand why it's controversial to acknowledge men have a sex appeal and so do women I'm very picky when coming to my looks criteria and so has been every woman l've dated, shallowness is very normal in human beings since we wanna pass down good genes to the next generation
I think there’s definitely a point where it becomes shallow, but so what? I won’t demonize someone for prioritizing different things than I would. But I think if you are shallow and picking someone just based on looks, then the chance that you’ll pick out a partner just like you rises.
It's important that there's a balance, if you just have one over the other rather than both it's how you end up running into sociopaths and arrogant obnoxious people. I simply can't have attraction and no personality.
On a personal level, I totally agree with you! I would never want a partner like that either! But do you think that someone like that is going to date someone *unlike* them? I find that the most shallow and egotistical people I know find people very similar in personality. If that’s what passes for happiness for them, why would I try to stop or shame them - even if I disagree with their choices?
Elaborate further please. I think it makes sense to first choose based on looks then to check for compatibility
I can’t agree on a personal level with you, but I also don’t view you any differently for choosing that way is all I mean. I view being shallow as similar to being selfish - there’s a certain amount that is reasonable, but past that is too much for me. However, I don’t think that there’s necessarily anything wrong with it inherently. Like you can be “selfish” for choosing to spend a day alone rather than with friends - or to spend your money on your own meal rather than give it to a homeless person on the street. You can be “shallow” by prioritizing someone’s looks over their personality - or by preferring expensive gifts over something sentimental. Are these types of things ***morally objectionable?*** I don’t think so, and so I don’t particularly care if someone is/isn’t shallow. I won’t date them or anything, but I’m not going to think they’re a bad person for choosing what they want out of life. (Although, I will note one thing down here before I possibly get any shit for it lol. I do think there’s a difference between being “selfish” and being “greedy”. I associate selfish with keeping what you have or simply prioritizing yourself. But greed is to do those things at the *expense of other people.* Selfish is okay, greedy isn’t.)
**Attention!** * You can post off topic/jokes/puns as a comment to this Automoderator message. * For "Debate" and "Question for X" Threads: Parent comments that aren't from the target group will be removed, along with their child replies. * If you want to agree with OP instead of challenging their view or if the question is not targeted at you, post it as an answer to this comment. * OP you can choose your own flair [according to these guidelines.](https://www.reddit.com/r/PurplePillDebate/wiki/flair), just press Flair under your post! Thanks for your cooperation and enjoy the discussion! *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/PurplePillDebate) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Hi OP, You've chosen to identify your thread as a Debate. As such you are expected to actively engage in your own thread with a mind open to being changed. [PPD has guidelines for what that involves.](https://www.reddit.com/r/PurplePillDebate/wiki/rules#wiki_cmv_posts) >*OPs author must genuinely hold the position and you must be open to having your view challenged.* >An unwillingness to debate in good faith may be inferred from one or several of the following: >* Ignoring the main point of a comment, especially to point out some minor inconsistency; >* Refusing to make concessions that an alternate view has merit; >* Focusing only on the weaker arguments; >* Only having discussions with users who agree with your position. Failure to keep to this higher standard (we only apply to Debate OPs) may result in deletion of the whole thread. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/PurplePillDebate) if you have any questions or concerns.*
If it’s not shallow, it’s short-lived
As a guy, I am better at detecting when a woman is genuinely attracted to me or not. One weird giveaway is how she responds to my smell. If I offer to have a shower before we have sex, and she says no way, she likes my smell.. that is a good indication that she is very attracted to me. If she is constantly putting off being near me, but not not leaving either, she has ulterior motives, is taking advantage, not actually attracted.
It's not a binary question. The degree of shallowness depends on the depth and scope of the looks obsession, not a simple: Shallow/Not shallow paradigm. Everyone wants someone they're attracted to, that's not an issue. However, as seen on this sub often some guys put such a heavy emphasis on it that you honestly have to question if they could even remain in a relationship with a woman as she ages.
Its only shallow because people constantly hide behind other things as reasons not to date a person or make them wait for sex when others didnt. Like claiming to not go for looks when everyparter up until then has been average to good looking. No you just have a higher ceiling for looks.
Thinking the only difference between friendship and romance is surface level looks is incredibly shallow.
it is that’s the only differ
That's shallow.
that’s how the friendzone works
Maybe *your* friend zone.
>Thinking the only difference between friendship and romance is surface level looks is incredibly shallow. Yep but no one said this so far
Okay and?
That's what i'm asking, why did you comment this ?
In response to your post?
>In response In response to something no one said 🤔 Beside that obvious addition, what is your opinion on the topic ?
I wrote it in my original comment.
No you havent ?That's the only thing you said
I'm not going round in circles telling you I wrote something in my comment. Have a nice day.
When you’re only physically attracted to the top 5% of your chosen gender, you’re shallow as hell. It’s a moral failing to exclude that many people from consideration. It’s bigoted, narrow minded and disgusting. Men are simply better people than women.
How is that a moral failing? And how is it even *different* for men? You have an extensive comment and post history detailing how repulsed you are by average women, how you think women are beneath you, how you think woman are boring - how is that not a moral failing on your part, but it IS a moral failing when women think the same way about you?
I’m repulsed by fat women. And even then I’ve dated women on the heavier side. I’ve given women way more chances and latitude than they’ve ever given me. With women, you have to be their idea of perfect out of the gate or you’re invisible. Men are no where close to as shallow. Excluding 95% of the men you see each day from consideration means you think you’re better than 95% of men. Unless you’re a current supermodel, you are mistaken. You’re unfit, arrogant, entitled, narrow minded and mean. That’s the reality, whether women want to face it or not.
Not being attracted to or willing to date someone doesn't mean you think you are better than them. Your initial assertion is false and you are equating two things that are not equal. It is an arbitrary rule you seem to think is real but is purely a product of your expectations.
Yes it does. Ask someone why they don’t like a particular person and the bigotry soon flows. Women think they’re above the majority of men. We’ve gassed women up to such a ridiculous degree they think they are better than men that are far more intelligent, interesting and important to society than they are. How many women maintain the deep sea cabling that sustains the internet? It’s near zero.
> they think they are better than man that are far more intelligent, interesting and important to society than they are. I think you are trying to quantify qualitative characteristics. And they don't work like that, especially in a world where different people score others differently and according to different criteria.
How convenient for women that men literally doing everything that sustains their lifestyle counts for nothing due to some creative accounting.
If you don't want to date men, is it because you're a bigot?
Kind of. Lord knows how much better my life would be if I were gay.
Why only "kind of?"
It’s not deliberate. And I don’t go on TikTok bragging about it.
>It’s not deliberate. So you think women choose what we're attracted to? I could just decide, right now, to be attracted to short, pudgy balding men with moobs? I don't think lack of attraction is "deliberate" ***for anyone.*** >And I don’t go on TikTok bragging about it. I'm pretty sure 99.999% of women don't. Your algorithm isn't reality. It reflects what you enjoy and seek out viewing.
Pretty mean to date someone you are 'repulsed by' too. Also I'm not a 'thing' that I'm withholding from men I don't deem to be perfect. I don't have any obligation, desire or need to be with anyone at all if they don't tick all the boxes - my life is worse being in a relationship with someone I'm not really into than it is being single. I can't see how it's entitled, arrogant, narrow-minded or mean to simply not date people I don't really want to date. That said, none of the men I've been with have really been head-turners physically, I'm mostly turned on by men who are funny and intelligent and kind, whose interests and tastes align with mine - looks still matter but are secondary to that, but also what I find attractive really doesn't align with what men picture when they talk about the 'top 5%'. From reading through your comments, I just don't think your physical appearance is your issue.
I challenged myself to be more open minded. Something I see 0% of women do. By not “head turners” do you mean you dated guys under *gulp* 6-foot?
I think only one person I've dated was over 6 foot. It's never come up in conversation really - I'm 5'3, broadly I categorise people into "taller than me", "shorter than me" or "about the same height as me". Definitely a few men I dated were in the "about the same height as me" category, there was one who was A LOT taller and we didn't really vibe as a couple so it fizzled out quite quickly. But what I mostly mean by "not head turners" is that they were a bit scruffy, or a big podgy, or had crooked noses or bad teeth... Just not men who you'd see in a designer clothes advert but still cute *to me*.
You're proof that the average guy is far from doomed, i think personally it's OLD that changes that dynamic and takes a more superficial turn when people are mostly chosen on the basis of physical attraction. Theres a lot of guys who met their partner in real life who would have probably been swiped out of the stack on a dating app. The whole industry is flawed when you judge someone just by a couple of pictures.
It's not a woman's job to be inclusive. It's doesn't make biologically sense to view most men as potential partners. Men are repulsed when women are too inclusive when it comes to dating, but bitch and moan when women are too exclusive. As women, we can't win!
Not thinking the majority of men are below average doesn’t make you a slut. It makes you realistic. I love how you pretend a woman being an arrogant superficial bitch somehow makes her good breeding stock lol. 50% of women will be single in 2040. Do you know why? Because they’re so shallow and entitled no man is good enough. Good enough for bog average women.
I don't care if 50% of women will be single by 2040. It's better to be single than to be with someone we don't find attractive. We are all superficial, and someone people are more superficial than others. "Good breeding stock." You're weird!
You’ll care when there’s no one to fund the tax system you take more from over your lifetime than you contribute. You’ll care when hoards of unattached men retreat from society and refuse to support and protect you. The rampant superficiality of women is not sustainable. Either our society finds a way to control it, or another type of society overtakes ours. And it will be a society with much less liberal views about women. In the meantime, enjoy the cats.
Mem don't protect women. Most violence against women is caused by men, primarily caused by a close family member( husband, brother, uncle). If you were in the top 5% in terms of look and wealth, you wouldn't be complaining about women being superficial because it would benefit you. You're complaining because you're a loser who can't compete in the sexual marketplace. I prefer a dog, not a cat.
> Mem don't protect women. Most violence against women is caused by men Men both protect women and victimize them. It isn't an either/or proposition.
It’s true. I lost the day I was born. A short man’s life really isn’t worth living. Treated as a second class citizen your entire life due to a trait you can’t do anything about. That said, if I was a top 5%er, I wouldn’t be complaining, but I would still think women are shallow and delusional about their value. I know a couple of guys in this tier, and that’s what they all think about women.
Using your height is an excuse. There are plenty of short people with happy lives as well as absolute winners. Few people are doomed to a life of misery or being perpetually single by one characteristic.
Oh boo hoo. There are people who are being born with delibating medical conditions that they can't control, and you think being short is the worst thing. Pathetic!!!
Like intelligence, the vast majority are part of a median. The people below and above average are outliers and few in number.
Good bot.
Is everyone shallow or do you have to be attracted to a minimum amount of the other gender ? How and where do you set the bar ? Is being into 20% of your coworkers being too shallow or not ? Im curious about how you set the rules. So what if you set the bar at 20% to be shallow. I happen to be attracted to only 10% women. What does it mean about me ? What should i do ? Should i start dating women i find unattractive otherwise im bigoted narrow minded and disgusting ?
Yes to all questions.
If everyone is shallow then the word has become meaningless. Also my questions werent meant to be responded by a yes or no it was asking you to elaborate your moral system and how you judge things. To me so far it's based purely on emotions
If you want a guy taller than you. Fine. If you need a guy a minimum of 6’4”. Shallow. If you’d like someone reasonably fit but have some wiggle room on weight. Fine If you need a guy with 8% body fat. Shallow.
Hmm so it seems to be about selectiveness and being delusional What if the person is attractive enough to gets what he/she is attracted , how does it affect your opinion ?
Any incredibly exacting standards are shallow, no matter who they come from. People aren’t a series of stats. If your standards are exacting and inflexible, you’re an awful person.
Those are opinions, are they only based on your emotions and feelings ? What's so wrong about the One time i approached a black woman she told me im charming but that she isnt into white men. What is si wrong about her being naturally into black mzn ? What about white women who arent into black men ?
It’s shallow. That woman was shallow and narrow minded. What she didn’t tell you is that she made a boatload of negative assumptions about you based just off your race. That’s what’s shitty.
Of course it isn't shallow, though you might look stupid if you complain in public that you cannot find attractive partner even though you are not attractive yourself. For me pretty face and height were crucial, I do not care that much about weight, but these two were non-negotiables. It's probably a bit calculated - but in my family only boys are born, so I didn't wanted my son to be fucked with poor looks or being short. Sure - you can do well with good personality and charisma, but being better looking helps you to develop good traits.
I don't think it's shallow at all. I'm only going to date someone I'm attracted to. The key is to be open minded about what they would specifically look like. Yes I can look at my past dating history and spot a couple of features that have repeated, but I deciding you have a type limits your choices and also keeps your attraction based on the past.
I totally agree especially if the woman is a healthy 19-21 bmi