Your partner's looks...

[Puffi]

To those in a serious relationship: how physically attractive is your partner?

Does anyone here admit they settled? If you feel you didn't settle, then do other people see your partner as incredibly good-looking, or do you have a dramatically different taste from the mainstream? If you did settle, does it bother you that you did? Does your partner know? Or do looks really mean nothing to you?

Usually people are physically attracted to someone to some extent and find something in their personality that warrants a serious relationship, and don't really think much about it beyond that. However, as INTJ you should naturally analyze it. I know what I find attractive in everyone I know. I probably wouldn't WANT to analyze my relationship if everything was going fine, but that's not really an option.

I read some threads, like that looks vs. personality thread etc. but never saw any good answers to this. I saw a lot of theories and the like, but I wish to know about actual experiences.

[alphawolf]

Settled for what? I loathe this term when it is used in this context.

Because I think that Mena Suvari is my dream girl in terms of physical attractiveness, does it mean that I "settled" if if I enter a relationship with a woman who in my opinion is less attractive than her?

That's awfully fucking shallow.

A woman who looks good and makes me feel good, that's all I'm after. She doesn't need to look like Mena.

[Puffi]

Because I think that Mena Suvari is my dream girl in terms of physical attractiveness, does it mean that I "settled" if if I enter a relationship with a woman who in my opinion is less attractive than her?

Yes.

A woman who looks good and makes me feel good, that's all I'm after. She doesn't need to look like Mena.

So you settle for someone who looks good and makes you feel good. But don't you analyze it at all? You never think about anything like this?

[ElstonGunn]

With all due respect, I think this might be why INTJs have a tendency to be bad at romantic relationships in the eyes of other people.

[alphawolf]

So you settle for someone who looks good and makes you feel good. But don't you analyze it at all? You never think about anything like this?


Yeah, I analysed it. It's called not being afraid of happiness.

There are millions of women on this earth that would be acceptable partners for me.

I have been with some that looked like supermodels and had every man in town chasing after them, and they couldn't give me anything emotionally. I have been with others that were quite beautiful inside and out, even with less than perfect physical appearance. I'll take the second type any day.

[Synamon]

I read some threads, like that looks vs. personality thread etc. but never saw any good answers to this. I saw a lot of theories and the like, but I wish to know about actual experiences.
You never saw good answers or you never saw the answer you wanted? Because this subject has been discussed to death lately in multiple threads and there were very thoughtful answers sprinkled in those threads.

Your idea of settling is not the same as most people's, you know that right? You have some ideal person who you've created a pedestal for and you resist anyone who tells you that is not realistic.

[Puffi]

Yeah, I analysed it. It's called not being afraid of happiness.

So everyone who has very high standards for looks is afraid of happiness?

You never saw good answers or you never saw the answer you wanted? Because this subject has been discussed to death lately in multiple threads and there were very thoughtful answers sprinkled in those threads.

Your idea of settling is not the same as most people's, you know that right? You have some ideal person who you've created a pedestal for and you resist anyone who tells you that is not realistic.

Well I couldn't go through the entire site so perhaps I missed something. I didn't find that many personal experiences from people in a relationship right now, it was mostly about future relationships and speculation. It's not the same as describing your current situation. You tend to be more idealistic when you're single.

My definition of settling here is the dictionary definition, so it'd be more objective and clear. There are different degrees of settling, and I'm asking people to understand and describe how deep it is for them personally.

[alphawolf]

So everyone who has very high standards for looks is afraid of happiness?

Yes, that's exactly right.

Chances are that the best looking woman you can imagine is not going to be yours. What are you going to do? Remain alone if you can't have her? Or take a woman who is somehow "lesser" in your mind?

How in the hell can you be happy when you are thinking to yourself that your partner's physical appearance is somehow less than you deserve?

[Puffi]

Yes, that's exactly right.

Chances are that the best looking woman you can imagine is not going to be yours. What are you going to do? Remain alone if you can't have her? Or take a woman who is somehow "lesser" in your mind?

How in the hell can you be happy when you are thinking to yourself that your partner's physical appearance is somehow less than you deserve?

Sure it makes it much more difficult or perhaps even impossible to be happy, but what does this have to do with being AFRAID of happiness? Can't you just be afraid of ending up with someone you don't like? That's not fear of happiness, it's fear of unhappiness.

[Synamon]

Sure it makes it much more difficult or perhaps even impossible to be happy, but what does this have to do with being AFRAID of happiness? Can't you just be afraid of ending up with someone you don't like? That's not fear of happiness, it's fear of unhappiness.

I believe he is implying that you are intentionally making it impossible to be happy because the fear you have of being happy or of failing or whatever. Cause and effect.

Alright since I've been married for 20 years I'll humor you and answer your question. My husband is attractive to me and I'm attractive to him. Are we physically attractive to the world at large? Probably, neither of us are hideous. Was it important to me? Nope, his attraction was far, far deeper than what he looked like. I was primarily attracted to his mind. Physical characteristics aren't very important to me. I'm generally attracted to tall dark men. My husband isn't. Oh well. Would I say I settled? Not in a million years.

I have the feeling that you are asking this question because you've never had a relationship and don't understand attraction. It isn't just physical. If all you care about is what someone looks like then you don't want a relationship, you want something superficial that I don't have a name for. A crush maybe?

[Puffi]

If all you care about is what someone looks like then you don't want a relationship, you want something superficial that I don't have a name for. A crush maybe?

I agree. But I don't think anyone on this planet is like that. Everyone cares about personality to some extent. And even you said looks mattered to you.

There are however people who consciously have settled. I know someone who flat out tells this to me, which is another reason I started this thread. It's just a very foreign idea to me to be able to admit it and still be happy in the relationship.

[LionsPride]

I would consider it settling if I felt I could do better, not that my partner could be better. If I was in a relationship where I wanted someone who treated me better and that I felt I could get someone better, but don't, then I "settled".

The truth is it's not your ideal that determines whether you are settling, it's what you can achieve and choosing to take less, that's settling. As alphawolf pointed out, when he was with the girls that might be close to his physical ideal they did not meet his needs. To stay with them would be to settle. Now when he chose a women who was less physically perfect, but she provided him all that he desired, he was not settling.

I know you are thinking that maybe he should have stuck it out until the woman who was a model, brilliant and had a loving personality came along and then wait through 15 of them to find one that's willing to date him. As others have told you earlier, going this route is for the people who don't want to find happiness because no woman who meets that description wants a man who is so shallow that he requires perfection. Furthermore, it's less likely he is the best person she can find making her the one in the position to "settle".

Often, the people who chase these ideals spend more time chasing then making themselves worthy of such a person.

[wotsamattaU]

I only know of one couple who you might say 'settled' and that was because they married for practical reasons, not love. This was an arranged marriage.

They are both attractive, intelligent individuals and you might (as an outsider) say they are well paired. There is no romance there, never was. They raised a family together, they each play their own roles within the marriage. In all of this their union is a success. Their personal relationship to one another however is that of roommates.

Those who marry for love might say these two 'settled'. It does not necessarily mean they would see it that way.

[Deliberator]

My hub's at about my attractiveness level. Not Brad Pitt, but higher than average. He has some quirky features too, like me.

[Puffi]

Now when he chose a women who was less physically perfect, but she provided him all that he desired, he was not settling.

He never said they provided all that he desired. Just that he preferred them over the supermodels. That's very different.

The truth is it's not your ideal that determines whether you are settling, it's what you can achieve and choosing to take less, that's settling.

You can't know exactly what you can achieve... Unless you're suggesting that only people already in relationships can settle, like in your example? This would be a very different definition of the word, so really just semantics.

As others have told you earlier, going this route is for the people who don't want to find happiness because no woman who meets that description wants a man who is so shallow that he requires perfection.

What's shallow about wanting perfection?

I only know of one couple who you might say 'settled' and that was because they married for practical reasons, not love. This was an arranged marriage.

This just defines the relationship in another way. Is it settling? If they value romantic love, I think it is. But if the societal norms are so that it's not generally valued, there's a good chance they don't, at least not much.

[Monte314]

She looks pretty good to me... and that's all that matters.

[Maayan]

I'm a typical woman. I value honesty, interest in me, confidence, intelligence, bedroom maneuvers and power over looks.

[mikebob]

She looks pretty good to me... and that's all that matters.

Monte's on point with this.

[rahdam]

Monte's on point with this.

Was this a sick math pun? Well played, sir =)

[mikebob]

Um... No. That being said, I now wish it was.

[alphawolf]

I'm a typical woman. I value honesty, interest in me, confidence, intelligence, bedroom maneuvers and power over looks.

As I have gotten older, I have found this to be very true.

And I think this is the real reason why so many beautiful women in their early 30s want men who are in their 40s. They really know how to play men, because they are beautiful. They want a strong man who can't be played by any woman, though they will damned sure try again and again to test the man. Confidence and power: this is what separates the men from the boys.

[Maayan]

I have been with some that looked like supermodels and had every man in town chasing after them, and they couldn't give me anything emotionally. I have been with others that were quite beautiful inside and out, even with less than perfect physical appearance. I'll take the second type any day.

Interestingly, but not surprisingly, I've gotten that impression from photographers who work with editorial models -- but not those who work with glamour models. Hm.

[krapyrubsnif]

They want a strong man who can't be played by any woman, though they will damned sure try again and again to test the man. Confidence and power: this is what separates the men from the boys.

When straight men say things like this it makes me so glad im gay.

We arent animals for fuck sake. And might it have occurred to you that the women you go for might just be the kind of women who like confidence and power, the kind of women who want dominance and subservience? Not all women are the same, and there are many that despise "penis is the only organ i think with" modus operandi. You have probably learnt not to come onto the kind of women who think with more than their genitals as they'd end up telling you to shove it.

Plus when Maayan said what she appreciated in a man, she said "I value honesty, interest in me, confidence, intelligence, bedroom maneuvers and power over looks." She didnt say "I value confidence and power". The picture is a little bigger than just raw animal lust. 2 out of 6 isnt very good going...





krapyrubsnif added to this post, 2 minutes and 33 seconds later...

Ok i just read the entire thread, you arent shallow and retarded like i thought. But the point still stands for men of that type.

[Mozzes]

Originally Posted by alphawolf

They want a strong man who can't be played by any woman, though they will damned sure try again and again to test the man. Confidence and power: this is what separates the men from the boys.

When straight men say things like this it makes me so glad im gay.

We arent animals for fuck sake. And might it have occurred to you that the women you go for might just be the kind of women who like confidence and power, the kind of women who want dominance and subservience? Not all women are the same, and there are many that despise "penis is the only organ i think with" modus operandi. You have probably learnt not to come onto the kind of women who think with more than their genitals as they'd end up telling you to shove it.

Plus when Maayan said what she appreciated in a man, she said "I value honesty, interest in me, confidence, intelligence, bedroom maneuvers and power over looks." She didnt say "I value confidence and power". The picture is a little bigger than just raw animal lust. 2 out of 6 isnt very good going...





krapyrubsnif added to this post, 2 minutes and 33 seconds later...

Ok i just read the entire thread, you arent shallow and retarded like i thought. But the point still stands for men of that type.

I have no idea how your criticism follows from what alphawolf wrote.

[naughtysnail]

I think my husband is the cutest thing alive, but I can see how other people would disagree. He conforms to the 'type' to which I'm usually attracted -- older, skinny, tall, large nose, sharp jawline, feminine mouth. But it wasn't his looks that drew me. It wasn't even that he's funny and sensitive and caring and all those other lovely things. It was that he challenged me and didn't back down when he knew I was wrong, but at the same time respected that I believed I was right for a reason. There's a respect there, for my intellect particularly, that I find it's very rare to find in another person.

[invicta]

Sexy is not wholly defined by looks. More goes into it, such as voice, wit, a mix of appropriate strength and sensitivity, maturity, creativity, style, and confidence.

There have been plenty of men who would be attractive if they would only never speak, dress themselves, or make any moves at all. The converse is true as well.

This topic limits attractiveness to looks alone, experience shows otherwise.

[alphawolf]

When straight men say things like this it makes me so glad im gay.

Maybe that's why you are gay; after all, we all need sex. And remember who unnecessarily pulled out the gay card when you think of a response to that.


We arent animals for fuck sake. And might it have occurred to you that the women you go for might just be the kind of women who like confidence and power, the kind of women who want dominance and subservience?

Yeah, we really are animals. The women I go for are strongly independent and highly educated, every last one of them. Some of them are high-level managers of large organizations, some of them have far more money than I could ever imagine: they have power, confidence, and independence of their own. And in romance, they all want a strong man who will sweep them off their feet and have his way with them.

It is so entertaining to be on dates with these women when they tell me about the weak behaviour of the men that they have went on dates with. They are just ridiculing these guys to no end. This is the blinking light for me about what is coming at the end of this date ;-) They are horny as hell, looking for a man who will be a man and take them. But they will be with their vibrator for months on end before they will take a weak man.

[Deliberator]

I will agree with alphawolf to some extent, but I think it is the matching of your confidence level with your partner's that is most important. Not everyone in the world is going to have a steel backbone... as long as the ones without backbones can find those like them who make them feel safe and comfortable, they can be happy. The strong need strong partners, the meek need meek partners.

It is when you get an obvious discrepancy that you have one dominant and one submissive partner; never a healthy relationship style.

[krapyrubsnif]

Maybe that's why you are gay; after all, we all need sex. And remember who unnecessarily pulled out the gay card when you think of a response to that.

Yeah, we really are animals. The women I go for are strongly independent and highly educated, every last one of them. Some of them are high-level managers of large organizations, some of them have far more money than I could ever imagine: they have power, confidence, and independence of their own. And in romance, they all want a strong man who will sweep them off their feet and have his way with them.

It is so entertaining to be on dates with these women when they tell me about the weak behaviour of the men that they have went on dates with. They are just ridiculing these guys to no end. This is the blinking light for me about what is coming at the end of this date ;-) They are horny as hell, looking for a man who will be a man and take them. But they will be with their vibrator for months on end before they will take a weak man.

I suppose i pulled out the gay card. And to be perfectly honest, there are plenty of gay guys i find absolutely horrendous and should be shot, in the same way i find there are plenty of straight guys that are absolutely horrendous and should be shot. Both sides of the fence have their lusty, penis-orientated, simplistic morons so yeah, it wasn't a particularly fair comment. I dont really prefer being gay, ive just adapted into being one.
(Remember, there are PLENTY of gay guys that think and act like you, just because you are gay - it doesn't mean you are a raging women inside. And FYI, if you had met me you probably wouldn't have though i was gay, same for my boyfriend. Some of us don't fit the queer category, and we like it just like that)

We are animals, but that misses the point. We are more than just animals, and being a human today is very much about trying to transcend beyond acting like animals in response to our animal instincts.

Thats your type, and you have probably built yourself slightly in order to be appealing to them (probably not consciously). But frankly, very few women are like that. And very few women think like that, it is unfair to make generalised comments based on pure subjective experiences.

Plus this whole weak strong thing is just so crap. Those words are filled with such rationalising. Its a way of trying to say "Im better than them". What fucking bullshit, you aren't better, just different.

A "strong" person means independence, arrogance, emotionlessness, forcefulness, control and so on.

A "weak" person means gentleness, being giving, having weakneses, being gracious, being emotional, requiring love and reciprocation and so on.

Neither of these types are better! They are just DIFFERENT.

(The way you had to bring up the vibrator in reference to the "weak" men, just says so much about your mind!)

[LionsPride]

You can't know exactly what you can achieve... Unless you're suggesting that only people already in relationships can settle, like in your example? This would be a very different definition of the word, so really just semantics.

You can't know what you can achieve, but each person has an idea of what league they are playing in. Some underestimate, others overestimate, but each has an inkling of what they can offer. People who find a mate within the league they picture themselves in generally never feel they have settled. People who severely overestimate the league they are in and expect to land a pro don't often find happiness, just a lot of rejection. They might, at some point find a person who severely underestimated their league, but as that status might be temporary their rare find might wake up one day and think "could I do better?". I used a relationship example because settling could involve more than just looks, but emotional happiness and sometimes that's not visible until you are in a relationship. Keep in mind leagues involve more than just looks. Rationally speaking, your league might be scored on a number of factors: wealth, attractiveness, intelligence, confidence, achievement, humour, temperament... Obviously some categories might be weighted a bit more heavily from person to person and some will get you farther in a bar and others at the theatre, but generally it's a total score you are assessed by and that you assess yourself on.

*Yes, everyone I know I just tried to quantify the gut feelings we use and each person's gut is a little different, but how else do I explain the concept of a league?



What's shallow about wanting perfection?

It's shallow if you don't offer perfection in return. Saying "I must be someone's perfection, somewhere" doesn't cut it either. If a person wants perfection, the first step is to become a better person, to be the perfection that you seek. The second step is to realize that it is both a person's strengths and weaknesses that make them suitable mate. Judging them only by what they lack without tempering it with what they have is the key to having no one ever meet your expectations and no one who would ever want to either.

[alphawolf]

(The way you had to bring up the vibrator in reference to the "weak" men, just says so much about your mind!)

I would be pleased if you would elaborate on that.

[Prunesquallor]

Yeah, we really are animals. The women I go for are strongly independent and highly educated, every last one of them. Some of them are high-level managers of large organizations, some of them have far more money than I could ever imagine: they have power, confidence, and independence of their own. And in romance, they all want a strong man who will sweep them off their feet and have his way with them.

It is so entertaining to be on dates with these women when they tell me about the weak behaviour of the men that they have went on dates with. They are just ridiculing these guys to no end. This is the blinking light for me about what is coming at the end of this date ;-) They are horny as hell, looking for a man who will be a man and take them. But they will be with their vibrator for months on end before they will take a weak man.

And I'm sure that makes you feel very special. Because you're a MAN. Congratu-bloody-lations.
Grow up, for goodness' sake.

Honestly, though, confidence is not the point. Unjustified confidence is one of the most irritating things a boy pretending to be "manly" can have. It's very lovely if we can learn something from you - if you lecture about things we already know, we will punch you. Et cetera. Power games are for the arrogant and the insecure.

This weird need of so many guys to think that they're better than us because they're MANLY really makes me wish I were a lesbian.

[Kisai]

My partner's pretty cute. I wouldn't have married her if I had to wince every time I saw her. She's not a raving beauty, but raving beauty is nowhere near the top of my list for a partner.

The woman I dated before my wife was very much my cup of tea, looks wise, a short haired busty brunette wearing glasses, but she was such a damaged person inside, I just wanted her out of my life. If you think I settled, then I settled for someone who makes me happy every day.

Besides, we're married, but neither of us have 'settled' by any means, he both have roving tendencies.

[Harmony]

A "strong" person means independence, arrogance, emotionlessness, forcefulness, control and so on.

A "weak" person means gentleness, being giving, having weakneses, being gracious, being emotional, requiring love and reciprocation and so on.

Neither of these types are better! They are just DIFFERENT.

I don't really see strong or weak defined the way you do... I am independent, yet giving... I think it really boils down to how far of an extreme a person takes things.

For example... If someone is giving because their partner or their love interest demands that they must buy them this gift to make them happy right now, and they go out and do it for fear their loved one would leave them, then yes that is weakness...

On the other hand, if someone is independent and saves their money back and buys their loved one a gift without being asked, just doing it because they wanted to... I wouldn't necessarily classify that as weakness...

[krapyrubsnif]

I don't really see strong or weak defined the way you do... I am independent, yet giving... I think it really boils down to how far of an extreme a person takes things..

I was trying to express strong how alphawolf sees it, and then express weak in a positive way, but still as per how he sees it.

I dont personally see it that way either.

But man alphawolf, you do seem to have a bit of a thing about proving this whole confidence thing. Just look at your last 20 or so posts!

And Prunesquallor, come to the other side of the fence. Over here there is so much more understanding, companionship, loyalty. We have so few politics, power games and general stupidity. I love being with my INTJ because we just ARE. We like each other and apart from a few incidental circumstances that will eventually resolve themselves, the picture is really that simple. We spend time together, we work well together, we have brilliant sex (and im not saying this in a, wow look at how manly i am, im saying this in a, we have a great connection that allows the physical to be so much better)...

Ahhh its all so simple and sweet :) even now, when he needs time and space to get over his ex!

[Antares]

I'm attracted to muscular, tough looking (not the orthodox 'pretty boy', but slightly handsome in their own quirky ways) men such as Sam Witwer and Ray Stevenson, but funnily enough, none of my "crushes" (god I hate this word) come close to this description.

[zibber]

To those in a serious relationship: how physically attractive is your partner?

Stop. There is no such thing as "physically attractive, period". People are attractive to you or not. You've most likely been influenced by conventions/norms/"ideals", but if you manage to cut through those, you'll find that you have an own taste. There isn't a general, universal human taste.

If you are in a relationship with someone who is sincerely not "physically attractive" to you (and I'd hope air/radiance plays a role in your understanding of this term; not some kind of disembodied notion of attractiveness you could deduce from one photo), you either have some more cutting though (conventions) to do, or you're with the wrong person.

Plus this whole weak strong thing is just so crap. Those words are filled with such rationalising. Its a way of trying to say "Im better than them". What fucking bullshit, you aren't better, just different.

That's how it came across to me, too, for what it's worth. Very wary of that kind of thing.

[alphawolf]

I was trying to express strong how alphawolf sees it, and then express weak in a positive way, but still as per how he sees it.

OK, but you are pretty far off the mark on both definitions, in terms of how I see it.





alphawolf added to this post, 2 minutes and 11 seconds later...

But man alphawolf, you do seem to have a bit of a thing about proving this whole confidence thing. Just look at your last 20 or so posts!

And the reason is that we are talking about attractiveness and desirability.

There is absolutely nothing sexier than confidence. Nothing.

[krapyrubsnif]

There is absolutely nothing sexier than confidence. Nothing.

Oh yes, I agree there.

But...
Only shallow people are purely concerned with shallow qualities.

And...
I dont define myself by my sexiness. I am confident, but that isnt all I am.

[alphawolf]

Oh yes, I agree there.

But...
Only shallow people are purely concerned with shallow qualities.

And...
I dont define myself by my sexiness. I am confident, but that isnt all I am.

As an INxJ person, I don't express myself very well. All I can say is that you don't know me if you think that I am shallow.

[krapyrubsnif]

As an INxJ person, I don't express myself very well. All I can say is that you don't know me if you think that I am shallow.

I dont think you are that shallow, from what i see in your other posts. But im responding to what you said there and then.

[Nikita]

My husband is attractive to me and I'm attractive to him. Are we physically attractive to the world at large? Probably, neither of us are hideous. Was it important to me? Nope, his attraction was far, far deeper than what he looked like. I was primarily attracted to his mind. Physical characteristics aren't very important to me. I'm generally attracted to tall dark men. My husband isn't. Oh well. Would I say I settled? Not in a million years.

And even you said looks mattered to you.


No, she really didn't. You are seeing what you want to see, and I am guessing that this carries over into your "real life". You appear to reject that which does not fit into your world view, which necessarily limits your understanding of the world at large and the people who inhabit it.

As zibber intimated above, attraction is entirely subjective. It is my belief that if you settle for someone who is simply drop dead gorgeous, but with whom you lack mental, intellectual, emotional, and spiritual connections, then you have settled, point blank. Anyone who chooses a relationship partner on the basis of physical attraction alone will be in for a rude awakening when old age takes its toll. If there is nothing beyond the surface, the relationship's foundation is built on shifting sand. And there's a hurricane 'a comin'!