Metanet Forums

I always, and I really mean always, hear girls talking about how little looks matter in a relationship. I know for sure that's a load of lies, based off Myspace proflies and who is actually asked out by them. On the Myspace profiles, it's not uncommon for one to see a topless guy with large pecs and a caption 'future huzband' or something to that extent. All the guys around here who have been asked out are generally the guys who are really good at sports and/or are obviously muscular/have 'good hair'...whatever that constitutes. So it is quite apparent to me girls care a lot about how somebody looks in order to choose who they want to date.

Guys, on the other hand, are slightly more tricky. They don't deny looks matter. In fact, many of my guy friends say looks do matter. However, they say looks are not the most major thing in a relationship. This can be disproven by having even one conversation with a guy, and yet it is a lot more common, around here at least, to see a good looking guy and an ugly girl going out than an ugly guy and a good looking girl. So that brings up a bit of confusion.

However, my question is derived from this. What constitutes beauty, in guys and girls separately, and mutually? And why does this affect who goes out with who? I think it all comes down to primal instinct, that the better mate will get the better offspring, but why is it that guys and girls like what they like in the opposite gender's body?

The thing to remember is that Myspace and high school are a lot different from, well, reality. Although physical attraction is an important factor in any sexual relationship, perspectives do change once a person grows up more. If that makes any sense.

I was merely using Myspace as an example. Myspace is pretty much just a way for cowards to show off to friends. Really pathetic.
I'm asking what role beauty has, and what makes a person beautiful.

beauty is a huge confusing mess of a person's personality, skin tone, hair, muscular structure, secondary sexual characteristics ("boobs"), overall body shape, proportions, eye colour and size, mannerisms, voice, and interaction-based experiences.
how people perceive beauty varies from one to the other, but overall, girls will find beautiful guys who are

• protective. girls like to know they'll be taken care of, and a protective, but not overprotective guy hints at this.
• muscular, but not "chiseled". this is linked to the protective thing. muscles can also hint towards fertility (which plays a large role in attractiveness)
• emotionally deep. nothing worse than a shallow guy, beauty-wise.

while guys will find girls to be beautiful if they

• display some childlike behaviours. the reverse of the protective thing.
• display feminine traits. breasts and wide hips are attractive, as is some fat around the thighs and buttocks, but not too much. more fertility stuff.
• act sexy.

things everyone likes:

• good skin tone, clear skin, healthy looking hair, straight/white teeth. everyone likes healthy people.
• smart and responsible (at least to some degree).

so, a guy will be beautiful to the majority of girls (though it may be termed as "hot") if he is muscular, has clear skin and a relatively even skin tone, is smart, protective, and responsible. the majority of guys (though they may be completely useless at expressing it) will find a girl beautiful if she has a "good" BWH measurement, nice teeth and hair, clean, even skin and interacts comfortably with guys.

or generally this is the case. it also helps if they show interest in you.
beauty in this way makes being with a person much more fun, as they are fun to look at, talk to, and play with.
yay beauty!
*smooches lover*

Everyone has a different perception of beauty. I prefer inner beauty, and I while I understand the concept of physical beauty, it's more of a sexual thing than anything else. The idea of liking someone purely for their superficial qualities seems ludicrous.

exactly. though it helps.
i think the best way to judge how beautiful someone is is through being friends first. i was friends with my lover for one year from a distance, then another a lot closer before we actually went out. and now, a year later, we're still strong.
blah, im more of a lover than a debater about love. it depends what you mean by beauty.
*hums john butler trio*

According to Richard Dawkins, we're just gene survival machines; we don't so much live and compete as humans as genes made us to propagate themselves.
It makes sense to me that genes that make you more attractive are going to help you see more procreation, and therefore that "attractiveness" gene can compete better than genes which don't give such an advantage. I don't think it's terribly out of the field of reason to say that genetics has influence over whom you find attractive.

I think younger or less mature forum members seem to be skewing their arguments to say that physical beauty means nothing. It's quite clear that even subconsciously, since one would hope for their offspring to be physically attractive, they would probably prefer a physically attractive mate. Also, sexual compatibility is a major aspect of any intimate relationship, and if this compatibility is off, I truly believe that even though you may get along so well with what's inside this person, if the physical side is there, it could be a dealbreaker.

I am not advocating that physical attractiveness should be the primary aspect of a relationship, but taking pride in your appearance and allowing yourself to be as attractive as can be can often lead you down paths to brilliant relationships.

In summary, beauty is both in the eye of the beholder, and not the single most important aspect in any relationship, but it is not an aspect to consider worthless either.

KinGAleX wrote:In summary, beauty is both in the eye of the beholder, and not the single most important aspect in any relationship, but it is not an aspect to consider worthless either.

Fully agreed. I think there are trends in beauty, but they are so tempered by the individual inclings of a person that they don't often hold water.

I also think that attraction and preference are distinct enough to be noted. I am attracted to brunettes and dark complexions; Indian chicks really get me off. But that's a preference. Within that preference, there are people who are both attractive and unattractive. I think some combination of preference and general attractiveness make a chick "beautiful" to you.



I don't think there is a sustainable model for attractiveness. I like the human evolution point, but I think all human evolution is tempered by both genetics and consciousness; some social exchange of ideas. People make some pretty non-genetic choices that really benefit the human race, regarding high level intellectual processing. I think the aesthetic is one of those things that has evolved with our social consciousness.

No modern human looks like the human animal--haircuts, nice suits, shaving, general weight gain in the population. Our society evolves fast and our species not so much. I think when we find someone "beautiful", it's less genetic and more to do with these social expectations and ideas we've engendered. Finding a girl "attractive" is like finding a video game "fun" or finding a television show "funny". I imagine, on some level, genes play a part. However, there's so much evolution we've done outside of our genetics that these things have acquire sociological and therefore psychological roots.

guys want sex, girls want a someone who can look after a baby (in most cases)
physical attraction aids emotional attraction and vice versa.
these things are complicated as hell. social status matters too.

Chad wrote:guys want sex, girls want a someone who can look after a baby (in most cases)

God, don't they ever. I can't get out of a bar without two or three girls asking me to babysit for them. They're really not big on appearance or personality. You roll up on Sharkies with a milk bottle, a pacifier, and a copy of Chicken Soup for the Parental Soul, and those chicks just throw their panties at you.

It's on the inside what counts, but physical appearence helps you find it.

Tsukatu wrote:I don't think it's terribly out of the field of reason to say that genetics has influence over whom you find attractive.

Bill Nye the science guy has something to say about that.
He made a science experiment in which a bunch of guys (~10) would wear white t-shirts for 48 hours, including sleeping in them. Then the shirts would be gathered and put in boxes. Then women would smell the inside of the boxes, without knowing what was inside. And now things get cool! Some women thought the shirts smelled like peppermint, chives, bacon, and all these other scents not associated with stinky shirts. The women would rank how good the boxes smelled, and the scientists found that the women were always attracted the men with the most similar DNA!
This is evolution's way of saying "well, I like what we've got going so far, so let's not screw it up with different genes."
This all comes down to pheromones. If you ever find yourself in love with someone, take a good whiff— they shall smell wonderful. <3
So the moral of the story is: there are a lot of factors towards attractiveness.

Oh, and one last thing: my school has a very cool exchange student from India, and I think he smells completely bizarre. Different genes?

I still don't buy that case for racism. Why am I so attracted, both consciously and unconsciously, to people whose genes are very much different from mine?

I do believe that pheromones are amazingly necessary in the process. I just don't think similarity breeds love. Homogeny seems counterintuitive to the process of evolution. If A and A breed, and A wins out in the offspring, it's no surprise and no evolutionary progress gets made. If A and B breed, and B wins out in the offspring, some amount of progress gets made because an inferior sample is lost. I can't see why we'd be naturally attracted to people that don't broaden our genepool.

While pictures of hot girls stir a certain reaction from me, I believe you have to see a person in motion before you can judge them on any scale of beauty. I know people who don't photo well but are possibly some of the most attractive things I've known when they move and speak.

Static can lie much more naturally. You'll fill in the gaps for yourself and paint around the image with your own desires and aspirations. Knowing a person in motion leaves much less to the imagination.

The last line that Alex wrote is pretty much spot on.

From my experience, I find myself more attracted to people the more I get to know them, provided they are easy to get along with or what have you. If I take a good amount of time to get to know someone who is annoying and loud, I won't grow more attracted to them. I don't base my pursuit of women on initial attraction, and find that I have tendencies to develop crushes based on what a girl is interested in, how she talks to me, how much self-respect she has, what her aspirations are, and so forth. And, as I start to talk to a girl on whom I've developed a so-called crush, and get to know even more about her; that is to say, the more I could see myself going out with someone (based on personality and all the above qualities), the more physically attracted to her I become. For instance, I had several stimulating, intellectual discussions last November with a girl I knew semi-well, but was never attracted to. We talked every night using instant messaging, and I got to know exactly how her brain functions, what she likes, what she wants to do for a living, and so many other things about her. And I found over the next weeks, that I found her prettier every time I looked at her. I never asked her out though, for whatever reason, and opted instead to start pursuing 'Gweny,' the month after. Fantastique...
And furthermore, the thing with Gwen was actually more out of physical attraction than really any other girl I had ever liked prior. I dated her because above all, she was the cute girl with the clarinet that didn't say much.
So, yeah...from my experience (and my girlfriend's too, actually), my non-physical attraction to people actually -causes- me to see them as more physically attractive over time. I thought that was an interesting perspective to throw into the hat.

mmn. i love topics like this.
type as you think it. woot.

as i have been doing all day, im going to agree with atob here, as well as dave.
pheromones and movement can be two very attractive or unattractive things. how someone moves, talks, smells, reacts.. all these decide a lot.
though, as alex said, if someone is still ugly on the outside, itll be very hard to have a successful relationship with them. and, as jig said, being with someone before you judge them will cause you to either grow more attracted or less attracted, based on their personality. being friends first is the best idea.

I find beauty to be relative. There are the guys and girls that date girls and guys (respectively) based purely on physical attraction. There are others who seem to throw almost all physical attraction to the side and go out with girls like that from the planters peanuts commercial (youtube it). I believe any relationship has to have at least a little physical attraction, no one can go out with someone they find repulsively ugly, just the same that no one is going to date someone they find ridiculously obnoxious (aside from selfish desires).

But what do I know, I'm still in a passive search for that person.

Jig, I wholeheartedly agree with you, in that when I get to know somebody better, and find most of the things about her to be positive, I am more attracted to her, even physically.

A friend once proposed a theory that if you spend enough time in the company of a particular person of the opposite sex, then eventually you will become attracted to them. With her theory, its not so much their personality or looks that create the attraction, but the situation.

I agree with Jiggerjaw and atob. I also think that there can be hundreds of factors in being attacted to somebody.

Y'know, I care less about natural beauty than a sincere attempt to make oneself look more attractive. Natural attractiveness still clearly accounts of something (and I bet there are people so naturally ugly that nothing short of plastic surgery can make them physically attractive), but I've found myself drawn to girls who, even though they weren't really anything special, at least tried hard.
What it really boils down to is: How can you expect me to respect you when you can't respect yourself enough to make a minimal effort to be appealing (...and that boils down further to "no fatties").

What constitutes beauty, in guys and girls separately, and mutually? And why does this affect who goes out with who? I think it all comes down to primal instinct, that the better mate will get the better offspring, but why is it that guys and girls like what they like in the opposite gender's body?
1: You have to make you sure that you're defining beauty, and not "sexy" or "hawt". However, I'd use words such as elegance or grace, with the belief that beauty applies not only visually, but also... mentally? Sorta. Like, everything about this person is beautiful, and not just their looks.
2: Some people - both guys and girls - are simply interested in going out with someone hawt/sexy. So, they do. Other people, meanwhile, go out with people who they actually like - it is this that builds lasting relationships.
3: Hmm. Primal instinct? Maybe, but good looks don't really have much to do with it - you have to be good at giving birth. :D
4: Why? I don't know. People just... do. Don't get into emotions and things, because they go deeper than just chemicals. A majority of guys like girls because she is sexy/hawt, and "a total babe". Girls, same thing. This guy is muscular, sexy, and these girls are complete nymphomaniacs looking for a good time. A minority of people judge on more than looks. Or, if it is looks, it just appeals to them for some reason or another. Keep going on this track and we'll end up on that "cute/beautiful" discussion.

Anyway, hope I've been of some vague help.

Tsukatu wrote:Y'know, I care less about natural beauty than a sincere attempt to make oneself look more attractive. Natural attractiveness still clearly accounts of something (and I bet there are people so naturally ugly that nothing short of plastic surgery can make them physically attractive), but I've found myself drawn to girls who, even though they weren't really anything special, at least tried hard.
What it really boils down to is: How can you expect me to respect you when you can't respect yourself enough to make a minimal effort to be appealing (...and that boils down further to "no fatties").

QFE. I think people who give an honest attempt to have good grooming and proper style can look decent, regardless of how their born--y'know, barring any teratoformations of the face. I've been touting this same belief for years. I mean, yeah, a girl looks pretty gross tarted up too much, but someone who understands aesthetic (and isn't necessarily born with it) can still be very attractive.

It's all about self-respect, confidence, and attempting to reflect those personal traits in your physical appearance.

Tsukatu wrote:Y'know, I care less about natural beauty than a sincere attempt to make oneself look more attractive. Natural attractiveness still clearly accounts of something (and I bet there are people so naturally ugly that nothing short of plastic surgery can make them physically attractive), but I've found myself drawn to girls who, even though they weren't really anything special, at least tried hard.

If you're referring to efforts like throwing a ton of makeup on your face to attract the attention of men, then I disagree. I disagree hard. I don't think any girl is prettier with makeup on than without it, simply because it's not what that girl actually looks like. I want to look at the un-"corrected" appearance of someone, because at the end of the day, if this is my wife, that is what I will see. And I'm not saying that makeup is bad, I'm just saying that without it, I am able to see what a person really looks like. Still, this doesn't matter to me as much as personality and all of the things I mentioned in my previous post, but that's what it comes down to: I don't want to see what you -can- look like, I want to see what you -do- look like.
Now, if you weren't referring to that sort of thing, and rather, to the mere regard for hygiene and grooming, as Dave implied with his post, then this post is pretty much useless. But, that's just another thing I suppose I'd like you guys to know about my perception of beauty.

Jiggerjaw wrote:If you're referring to efforts like throwing a ton of makeup on your face to attract the attention of men, then I disagree. I disagree hard.

No no, not at all. I agree with you - too much makeup just looks bad. Bad makeup skills reflect poorly upon someone in the same way that lack of social grace and tact do. Other traits can make up for that (pardon the semipun), but it's grating nonetheless.
I prefer minimal makeup, but I do still prefer makeup.

Jiggerjaw wrote:I don't think any girl is prettier with makeup on than without it, simply because it's not what that girl actually looks like.

Why do you draw the line at makeup?
You're alright with bathing, deodorant, cologne, clothing choice, and hairstyle, but makeup is what makes someone look unnatural?
To accompany my already antisocial views on society, I think the "artificial = bad" mentality is just silly. It can be bad (e.g. breast implants), but it can also be quite good (e.g. deodorant). I think it should be encouraged to do whatever is in your power to make yourself look more attractive, where what is attractive is determined by popular opinion and serves as an adequate check to any incentive to resort to ridiculous measures. I even think it's a bit unfortunate that it's generally unacceptable for men to wear makeup. We already do everything just short of it - we bathe, exercise, tone, tan, dress and perfume ourselves (though it sounds more manly to call it 'cologne'), style our hair, shave, and brush our teeth with the intention of being more appealing to others, but somehow wearing makeup ends up being fruity. *shrug*

Every now and again, I've seen some smokin' hot girl in my class come in with no makeup (hasty morning, probably) and look considerably less attractive because of it. But she's still just as attractive to me because I know she still cares. My mind stays with the reflection of her potential to make herself look attractive, which is exactly what I think we should be focusing on.

Jiggerjaw wrote:I want to look at the un-"corrected" appearance of someone, because at the end of the day, if this is my wife, that is what I will see.

So I take it you're going to go out of your way to find someone who doesn't wear makeup, cut her hair, or shave her legs and pits? I suggest starting in France, and let the stench of unchecked body odor guide your search.

My (admittedly antisocial) view is that you have to give people credit for their efforts and skills.
Yes, I am implying that you are shallow for this reason; you are judging based on pure natural attractiveness, whereas I think there's far more of a social element in the process of making oneself look attractive.

Jiggerjaw wrote:I don't want to see what you -can- look like, I want to see what you -do- look like.

I don't think I could've laid a better accusation than you've just admitted here.