Good looks less and less important after time

  • Thread starter Thread starter Xantippe
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
X

Xantippe

Guest
I was just reading a piece here on the question of which is more important for attracting a mate: good looks or personality.

doctornerdlove.com/2014/06/building-attraction-which-matters-more-looks-personality/

While initially looks are very important in attraction, interestingly, it looks like as time goes by, personality becomes more and more important.

From the NYT piece quoted in the DNL post:

“For one of our studies, we recruited 129 heterosexual individuals across several small undergraduate classes. These individuals indicated, at both the beginning and the end of the semester, the extent to which the opposite-sex students in their class possessed a set of desirable qualities. We found that consensus dropped and uniqueness increased as these students got to know one another over time. After three months, uniqueness dominated consensus for all desirable qualities: attractiveness, vitality, warmth, potential for success and even the ability to provide a satisfying romantic relationship.”
 
Nonsense, if that was the case you wouldn’t have seedy old men leering after young girls or having affairs with them while cheating on their wives-of-many-years.

Rightly or wrongly, looks are what matters in pretty much every aspect of life; work,networking, most essentially of all in romantic relationships.

Certainly, they can take place without good ones but it’s more difficult. Compare it to attempting street racing in an older or less expensive car. You can do it in a Ford Pinto, just don’t expect the same results as the guy in the latest Ferrari! 😃
 
As for me, although I am quite young and have never been in a romantic relationship, attractiveness has never been a really strong point for me. I’d be lying if I said it means nothing, but for me it’s sufficient to possess sufficient hygiene and grooming skills and be healthy. An average looking guy is generally attractive enough in terms of good looks.

What I find insanely attractive is a very high intellect…someone talking immunology, astrophysics, or high-level mathematics with passion will absolutely get my attention. Combine that with the sort of personality I find appealing, and I will be swooning. 😃 😉 Alas, I have not found too many people like that…especially anyone Catholic and eligible.

I feel absolutely no attraction whatsoever for the stereotypical good-looking guy, at least not based on his looks alone. I cannot understand why young women my age think they’re so cute when I think it’s just not that great. The Brad Pitt thing I simply do not understand.

I realize this is slightly off-topic but I didn’t think it was worth starting a thread over.
 
Nekonecro said:

“Nonsense, if that was the case you wouldn’t have seedy old men leering after young girls or having affairs with them while cheating on their wives-of-many-years.”

The point of the study is that the more you know somebody, the less you attribute importance to the initial impression their physical appearance makes. You may be familiar with the saying that goes, “No matter how beautiful a woman is, there’s some guy who is tired of putting up with her.” (That’s not quite the end of it, but you can google it yourself if you’re unfamiliar with the quote.)

Movie stars, while very good looking, are famed for the brevity of their relationships.

“Rightly or wrongly, looks are what matters in pretty much every aspect of life; work,networking, most essentially of all in romantic relationships.”

It may get you a shot, but it doesn’t seal the deal.

Think about Steve Carrell’s character from The Office. He is a super duper conventionally handsome guy, and he does very well initially with people he deals with–hence his success as a salesman. However, for the people who deal with him day to day (namely his employees), the movie star chiseled features are totally irrelevant, because they deal with him every day, and they know exactly what kind of narcissistic goofball he is.
 
DoloresHeart said:

“I feel absolutely no attraction whatsoever for the stereotypical good-looking guy, at least not based on his looks alone. I cannot understand why young women my age think they’re so cute when I think it’s just not that great. The Brad Pitt thing I simply do not understand.”

Yep.

It’s actually even a little off-putting when a guy is amazingly good looking.
 
Good looks are just a relevant reason to act.

Women may be conditioned more to react, rather, so this may be a little unfamiliar to you unless you’ve done a couple of pursuits of your own, but the person who plays the active role needs to choose somehow.

Choose or pick rather.

It’s not a weighed choice like proposing a relationship, but you still need to pick just one girl out of, say, three who are sitting together and talking. You just can’t take turns or date them all at the same time, you have to focus, zoom in, lock on target, whatever.

Sort of like recruiters sifting through resumes or people shopping from the shelf where there are multiple brands for the same thing. Or, say, you’re staying in a different city, you probably won’t be coming back to that same baker’s shop in your life time, but there’s only so much bread you can eat. You probably get a loaf, maybe two. But not five. You have to decide somehow without having full information.

Women may be guided more by perceived courage, strength, authority or position (or education, sensitivity, manners etc.). Men will generally be guided more by looks or something else visually related, although not exclusively. But this changes when potential targets aren’t strangers. Existing friends and acquaintances get away with more in the looks department — the getting to know has already taken place, there is already a bit of history shared together, some warm emotions and good associations accumulated over time.

A stranger, on the other hand, would typically compete on looks. Other factors can’t be relevant when they aren’t even known yet!
 
Xantippe said:
Nekonecro said:

“Nonsense, if that was the case you wouldn’t have seedy old men leering after young girls or having affairs with them while cheating on their wives-of-many-years.”

The point of the study is that the more you know somebody, the less you attribute importance to the initial impression their physical appearance makes. You may be familiar with the saying that goes, “No matter how beautiful a woman is, there’s some guy who is tired of putting up with her.” (That’s not quite the end of it, but you can google it yourself if you’re unfamiliar with the quote.)

Movie stars, while very good looking, are famed for the brevity of their relationships.

“Rightly or wrongly, looks are what matters in pretty much every aspect of life; work,networking, most essentially of all in romantic relationships.”

It may get you a shot, but it doesn’t seal the deal.

Think about Steve Carrell’s character from The Office. He is a super duper conventionally handsome guy, and he does very well initially with people he deals with–hence his success as a salesman. However, for the people who deal with him day to day (namely his employees), the movie star chiseled features are totally irrelevant, because they deal with him every day, and they know exactly what kind of narcissistic goofball he is.
Click to expand...
Oh, thats true enough 🙂 It’s possible to get a relationship without looks I don’t doubt that, but looks are essential. Sure, you do get people like Dolores above me who seeks a more intellectual partner, but we can’t deny animal instinct is a powerful motivator and remains thus; physical fitness and beauty is what allows for relationships to bloom and kicks off the conversation, any intellect can assist keep them there but doesn’t really help for netting a first, second or even third date.

A longer term relationship relies heavily upon that first attraction. It doesn’t hold it up once your looks start to fade or negative personality traits become obvious, but it all starts from there.

Even with a long term freind though who you might become attracted to, you’re unlikely to want to hop in the sack with them if they’re absolutely hideous, no matter how smart or nice they are.

Edit: Then there are the examples of those who’s marriages have fell apart after one spouse has suffered some disfiguring injury, a long period of marriage doesn’t hold that together.
 
Xantippe said:
Movie stars, while very good looking, are famed for the brevity of their relationships.
Click to expand...
Actresses are there for acting skill. They don’t usually pick ‘ugly’ ones, granted, but those who do get picked aren’t necessarily prettier than many women you just simply bump into in your daily life, once the make up is off and so is the act, not to mention the light and camera angle and so on.

You can see the same difference in professional photos vs ‘selfies’ of your friends on Facebook or girls on dating portals (if you have a relative or guy friend who will show you).

Besides, just the knowledge that she’s Name Surname does the magic for people (group think/anchoring/whatever), unlike in the case of a student from the library or the new intern etc., who may well be prettier than most world-class actresses (although she’s not the better actress, which means she might still lose the overall competition for attractiveness)
 
Nekonecro said:

“Sure, you do get people like Dolores above me who seeks a more intellectual partner, but we can’t deny animal instinct is a powerful motivator and remains thus; physical fitness and beauty is what allows for relationships to bloom and kicks off the conversation, any intellect can assist keep them there but doesn’t really help for netting a first, second or even third date.”

Stephen Hawking has been married twice.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stephen_Hawking

Here’s a picture of Hawking as a newlywed in 1965:

telegraph.co.uk/news/picturegalleries/uknews/5189606/Professor-Stephen-Hawking-in-pictures.html?image=2

Here’s Hawking with his second wife in 1995:

telegraph.co.uk/news/picturegalleries/uknews/5189606/Professor-Stephen-Hawking-in-pictures.html?image=4
 
because looks are superficial and fleeting things, initially, it’s exciting but after a while, it fades, at least in a lot of cases.
 
NekoNecro said:
Oh, thats true enough 🙂 It’s possible to get a relationship without looks I don’t doubt that, but looks are essential. Sure, you do get people like Dolores above me who seeks a more intellectual partner, but we can’t deny animal instinct is a powerful motivator and remains thus; physical fitness and beauty is what allows for relationships to bloom and kicks off the conversation, any intellect can assist keep them there but doesn’t really help for netting a first, second or even third date.

A longer term relationship relies heavily upon that first attraction. It doesn’t hold it up once your looks start to fade or negative personality traits become obvious, but it all starts from there.

Even with a long term freind though who you might become attracted to, you’re unlikely to want to hop in the sack with them if they’re absolutely hideous, no matter how smart or nice they are.

Edit: Then there are the examples of those who’s marriages have fell apart after one spouse has suffered some disfiguring injury, a long period of marriage doesn’t hold that together.
Click to expand...
I don’t disagree that physical appearance is a powerful attractant or even the first attractant for most people, but it’s just not that way for me personally. Any guy I’ve ever been attracted to has been quite average in looks and none would ever stand out in a crowd based on looks alone.

I will say though that great intelligence and general personality traits I find appealing do have a way of lighting up a person so that they seem handsome, but it’s not handsome like college girls giggling at the allegedly cute guy kind of good-looking. It’s difficult for me to explain. It’s not the sort of handsome people would lust over, but something that makes that person unique and arouses respect and admiration.

I find the idea of being attracted to someone initially on looks alone to be absolutely foreign to me. While I somewhat understand it intellectually, in practical life I just don’t get it. I have a mental connection talking to intelligent people and have the potential to share major aspects of my life and interests with them, whereas I have no more connection with handsome men than I might a nice sunset. So I see no more potential in someone especially handsome than I would an average-looking guy.
 
NekoNecro said:
It doesn’t hold it up once your looks start to fade…
Click to expand...
That’s a sad attitude to hold. And an obvious overgeneralisation, at least in terms of marriage statistics, since most first marriages do not end in divorce.

Out of interest, when do you consider looks to start to fade? The average age of first time divorcees is 30-32 years old, and I think most people are peaking around that age, not “fading”.
NekoNecro said:
Edit: Then there are the examples of those who’s marriages have fell apart after one spouse has suffered some disfiguring injury, a long period of marriage doesn’t hold that together.
Click to expand...
And many examples that show exactly the opposite.
 
DoloresHeart said:

“Any guy I’ve ever been attracted to has been quite average in looks and none would ever stand out in a crowd based on looks alone.”

Bear in mind that average is attractive.

bu.edu/phpbin/news-cms/news/?dept=1127&id=41272

If one has average appearance, one is already doing pretty well.
 
There’s a Russian proverb that goes like this, “Vstrechayutsya po odezhke, provozhayut po umu.”

What that means is, roughly, people meet because of clothing, but they stick together (or not) because of their minds.
 
That’s very educational, chevalier, especially for the guys.

(It’s a set of photos demonstrating before and after for makeup.)
 
It seems to me that the message is that if you are not Hollywood in the looks department, you’d do well cultivate yourself in the actions department, and then look to date people who’ve had a chance to get to know you or to find dates based on the recommendations of those who know you. This means you have to be willing to date those you know and have come to prize for something besides looks yourself, and that you are willing to hazard being set up with someone else who has been chosen for you by friends and others who know you in common.
NekoNecro said:
Nonsense, if that was the case you wouldn’t have seedy old men leering after young girls or having affairs with them while cheating on their wives-of-many-years.

Rightly or wrongly, looks are what matters in pretty much every aspect of life; work,networking, most essentially of all in romantic relationships.

Certainly, they can take place without good ones but it’s more difficult. Compare it to attempting street racing in an older or less expensive car. You can do it in a Ford Pinto, just don’t expect the same results as the guy in the latest Ferrari! 😃
Click to expand...
I would say that it depends on who you are talking about. If he married you for your looks, you do have to be concerned that you will lose his interest as soon as you lose your looks, and maybe as soon as your looks have lost their novelty with him. If she married you for your money or your status, you’ll probably lose her when someone with more money or fame to offer comes along.

There are those who would choose a Ferrari when what they need is a Ford pickup. If you are going over rough terrain, after all, a Ferrari will not just fail to get you there faster than a four-wheel drive with good tires and clearance. A Ferrari will fail to get you there at all!

Of course, the analogy breaks down because there isn’t a necessary connection between looks and character. A person does not have to have one or the other, but may have neither or both.

I am fond of this from Shakespeare, though:

…But, before God, Kate, I cannot look greenly nor gasp out my eloquence, nor I have no cunning in protestation; only downright oaths, which I never use till urged, nor never break for urging. If thou canst love a fellow of this temper, Kate, whose face is not worth sun-burning, that never looks in his glass for love of any thing he sees there, let thine eye be thy cook…And while thou livest, dear Kate, take a fellow of plain and uncoined constancy; for he perforce must do thee right, because he hath not the gift to woo in other places: for these fellows of infinite tongue, that can rhyme themselves into ladies’ favours, they do always reason themselves out again. What! a speaker is but a prater; a rhyme is but a ballad. A good leg will fall; a straight back will stoop; a black beard will turn white; a curled pate will grow bald; a fair face will wither; a full eye will wax hollow: but a good heart, Kate, is the sun and the moon; or, rather, the sun, and not the moon; for it shines bright and never changes, but keeps his course truly.
Henry V, Act V, Scene II

King Henry makes a good case, he really does. Not everyone chooses that way, but it is a wise way to choose.
 
In response the the article in the OP’s post, I think it’s worth nothing that the focus seems to be on the female-to-male attraction side of the equation. They didn’t even touch the other side, and well…we all know why. If we’re honest for a moment, we know that many more women could wholeheartedly agree with the statement in the header than men.

Sadly, men are more often judged-- and either ascribed a higher or lower status-- based solely on the appearance of their wives than women are based solely on the appearance of their husbands. And, among Catholics, chastity and one marriage may actually raise the stakes even higher (this is absolutely not any kind of negative statement regarding the teachings of our faith, just an observation of an unintentional outcome). If you only have one shot, so to speak, of course you’re going to do everything in your power to maximize your chances of getting one of the “top” choices. And since there simply aren’t enough counter statements in the world to negate the impact of the 24/7/365 media standards (yes, even among Catholics-- ever heard of the “Catholic Barbie” issue?) that are imposed on us day after day, “top” choices are, more often than not, whatever flavors the media tells us are acceptable. Once the standards beyond physical appearance-- such as having a certain job or social status-- come into play, no one outside of the “perfect” set has a chance in the majority of cases.

In general, women aren’t the ones casually applying numbers ratings systems to random people they see on the street, aggrandizing a certain “type” based solely on physical appearance, or writing not-so-subtle requests for “fit” (read: thin-- no, not healthy-- thin) candidates on their dating profiles. I’d agree that with time things will, more likely than not, even out in terms of the relative importance of looks, but in the early days (probably up until about age 45-50, though there may also be a class-social status element that raises the limit), there’s that gender component to consider.
 
It’s a good thing this is true, because most of us don’t get more attractive as we get older. 😛
 
iwillrisenow said:
…Sadly, men are more often judged-- and either ascribed a higher or lower status-- based solely on the appearance of their wives than women are based solely on the appearance of their husbands…
Click to expand...
Solely? (and with stars, no less?!?) By whom? Good grief, I don’t know how I could stand the company of someone so shallow, let alone care two figs about their opinion. Besides, how often these days is it that anyone in a position to advance or impede your career ever sees your spouse? This isn’t 1950, and let’s impress the boss when he comes to dinner.

I cannot tell you how many of my friends described their “ideal” in college with regards to the accidents of looks–tall, short, hair color, and what-have-yous that I’ll not go into–and then married someone who looked totally different. It is funny how easily affection can turn someone into “your type.” Certainly the people who hope to stay married a long time had better let go of that. Most of us look a great deal different, 20 years later.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top