Should Looks Matter?

[AnneElizabeth]

You would have to address this with a proper argument.

Saying that you look “nice” isn’t an argument. That’s at most anecdotal evidence of an exception.

It’s not an assumption, it’s a biological fact.

Most men agree on what attractive women look like. It’s not rocket science. It’s in our genes to consider a healthy woman someone who can bear children with a specific waist to hip ratio. there are many studies that show this.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Physical_attractiveness#Female_physical_attractiveness
Just look at the amount of studies done on the matter…

There might be false notions touted around, especially among women, but that does not mean that biological preferences don’t exist… only that there are many factors that affect human behavior.

And I already said that looks shouldn’t matter the most, only that they affect us, and that we should know how they affect us in order to make the best decision.

Sure, it’s easy to say that you want to have a partner that has some experience in life, that knows how to go through hardships, has patience, virtues, etc… but many women only achieve that after their husbands die… not the best time to start a family.

You need to be able to think about all the options, and marrying a bald 45 year old woman that survived a mastectomy just because she is catholic shouldn’t need to be in the front of the list of any 25 year old man.

(By the way I am a 30 years old man)
God bless,
D.

Thanks for your assessment. I think you unfairly assumed a lot into what I said. I also don’t think you assessed properly what I was trying to say.

Example: Most men would probably agree that Selena Gomez is a very attractive woman. Selena Gomez is also a woman battling illness: Lupus. So please explain why someone who is ill, has illness that is debilitating at times, is still thought of as highly attractive IF attractiveness is indeed indicative of good healthy genes and she is desired as a mate by men?

^This was the point of my argument and the gist of what I said.^ That beauty does not factor into how healthy someone is or is not.

 

[dskysmine]

Thanks for your assessment. I think you unfairly assumed a lot into what I said. I also don’t think you assessed properly what I was trying to say.

Example: Most men would probably agree that Selena Gomez is a very attractive woman. Selena Gomez is also a woman battling illness: Lupus. So please explain why someone who is ill, has illness that is debilitating at times, is still thought of as highly attractive IF attractiveness is indeed indicative of good healthy genes and she is desired as a mate by men?

^This was the point of my argument and the gist of what I said.^ That beauty does not factor into how healthy someone is or is not.

Anne Elizabeth, I understood perfectly what your argument was… that it cannot be applied universally. Sure, there are exceptions… I already answered to that claim in the original answer… an anecdotal exception does not a rule make…
There isn’t a high correlation between looking highly attractive and being very sick.
I also didn’t say that attractive women/men don’t get sick… I said they were biologically healthy, as in genes that are the most likely to withstand the current environment.
It would make no sense for an African man to consider a Northern European woman 500 years ago… Northern Europeans in Africa had very low life expectancy because of diseases and not being equipped to survive in that environment. Technology has made this a bit moot… but the biological principles are still there.

God bless,
D.

 

[Melodeonist]

Why would looks matter? God made all women pretty.

Just because someone isn’t physically pretty doesn’t mean they aren’t pretty in their heart.

 

[LethalMouse]

If love is sacrifice than no spouse who loves you would let themselves go

So looks can indicate selfish slobbery

 

[LethalMouse]

Why would looks matter? God made all women pretty.

Just because someone isn’t physically pretty doesn’t mean they aren’t pretty in their heart.

That is a nice sentiment, and human value wise looks don’t matter… but after marriage theology of the body stuff? Eh… you gotta be able to function to be fruitful and multiply.

 

[LethalMouse]

Thanks for your assessment. I think you unfairly assumed a lot into what I said. I also don’t think you assessed properly what I was trying to say.

Example: Most men would probably agree that Selena Gomez is a very attractive woman. Selena Gomez is also a woman battling illness: Lupus. So please explain why someone who is ill, has illness that is debilitating at times, is still thought of as highly attractive IF attractiveness is indeed indicative of good healthy genes and she is desired as a mate by men?

^This was the point of my argument and the gist of what I said.^ That beauty does not factor into how healthy someone is or is not.

The genetic arguement does not mean the person is immune to all disease… it is an indicator of certain traits that TEND to produce offspring with better health in a general context.

“Child bearing hips” is a term because good hips means better natural survival now often midigated by sciences but in a direct biological sense they are biologically better. But good hips for not dying in labor does not make one immune to lupus…and so on and so forth.

 

[catholicguy25]

I think most people care a lot about looks… For instance my female family members care a lot about the guy’s height… I also notice that when I visit dating sites, most women have “height requirements” along with “ethnicity requirements”… I find very disappointing to be liked or disliked as a result of your genetic traits.

I know some men are also guilty of focusing so much on women’s looks… but “At least” men tend to focus on things that aren’t genetic traits such as weight or hygiene… Additionally, taking care of our weight or hygiene is important for our health…

 

[AnneElizabeth]

Just thought of this…

In all our images of Jesus and Mary and any saints, you won’t find any of them depicted as not attractive. You ask, should looks matter… if not, then why are they depicted always as attractive? Even in modern times, I’ve seen certain saints that we have photographs of and know what they looked like, they ‘touch up’ their image… I find this loathsome. I don’t know why they do it… if looks shouldn’t matter. I can see the beauty of a saint regardless of what he looks like.

Why does the church do this?

 

[dskysmine]

Just thought of this…

In all our images of Jesus and Mary and any saints, you won’t find any of them depicted as not attractive. You ask, should looks matter… if not, then why are they depicted always as attractive? Even in modern times, I’ve seen certain saints that we have photographs of and know what they looked like, they ‘touch up’ their image… I find this loathsome. I don’t know why they do it… if looks shouldn’t matter. I can see the beauty of a saint regardless of what he looks like.

Why does the church do this?

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saint_Drogo

I don’t think that is necessarily true for all saints, but if you were going to make a picture of someone you love why would you depict them when they didn’t look as attractive?
We put on our best clothes to go to Mass for a reason. We want to look our best for God, our loved one.

God bless,
D.

 

[ToeInTheWater]

The “our genes force men to seek out a particular type of woman” doesn’t actually explain everything, much less excuse it.

There was a time the “consumptive look” was considered beautiful in a woman. Thin and pale, but with flushed cheeks from the fevers caused by “consumption”. But a woman with “consumption”, now known as tuberculosis, is hardly the best candidate to procreate with, since chances are pregnancy could actually hasten her death. Or, she could pass the disease onto the baby, causing the baby’s death.

Or what about the “heroin chic” half-starved look that at one point was very popular in fashion models. A woman that starved is probably not even having regular menses, hence, not even fertile, so how can that be an argument that “biology is destiny”, that some men are attracted to such women because they are driven by genes to find the best partner to procreate with? (And obviously, a woman actually dependent on heroin to stay think doesn’t exactly make for great spousal material.)

Or what about the African tribe where women use metal coils from childhood on to force their necks to be ridiculously long. This is considered attractive in that culture, but what the length of a woman’s neck has to do with her fertility, or quality of offspring, I have no clue.

Now you may say “oh but those are just exceptions to the rule”! I suppose, with your comment about Africans having no biological reason to marry Europeans, that you also think inter-racial marriage is an “exception” to the rule?

I can come up with a whole bunch of other examples with some rudimentary research. I think that given enough exceptions to a “rule”, the rule loses the status of being, well, a rule.

 

[styrgwillidar]

I personally would not hold it against someone for not dating a person he (or she) does not find aesthetically pleasing. In other words, I think it’s important to think your future spouse is superficially beautiful in at least some way.

But am I wrong?

Let’s take it back to the olden days for a second:

Consider a young man who has two choose between two women,—for what? a date? Ultimately in our society its the woman who makes the choices, she’s the gatekeeper to if things proceed— both of whom are virtuous, God-loving women. Both women share exactly the same interests and personality traits. The only difference is that one is prettier than the other;’-- to him-- that’s the only difference whatsoever. On the basis, then, of her looks, he chooses the more beautiful woman.

Should we fault him for this, though? If looks are something that don’t matter, it stands to reason he should have made no choice at all. Perhaps neither woman was meant to be his wife.

P.S. This situation is strictly hypothetical! I just want people’s viewpoints. I’m not having trouble choosing a wife!

No, we shouldn’t fault him. Different things appeal to different people and looks may spark interest ( and there’s little else to go by when we initially meet people- but they shouldn’t be the reason relationships continue). Why shouldn’t he choose to ask the woman who appeals to him more, undoubtedly the other woman will be more appealing to some other men.

Maybe this is just me, but I’ve met women I haven’t found that beautiful initially but have found them more physically attractive over time and getting to know them. And I don’t just mean appreciating their personality, I mean that personality/physical appearance due tend to combine. Sound of their laughter, seeing them smile, their enthusiasm for life shining from the depths of their eyes, the way they move and hold themselves. I also have noted the opposite, women I initially thought of as attractive that I found less so after getting to know them.

There is also the issue of appearance in terms of hygiene and manner of dress communicating a sense of self-worth, taking care of themselves vice slovenliness and a lack of respect for themselves. I think we all tend to factor this in, even if its just subconscious. I can’t fault a woman for writing me off if I’m content to be slovenly and unkempt.

I think the problem arises when you reject out of hand folks based on appearance, or if you tolerate a lot of other negatives about a person just because they look good. I think that demonstrates a lack of respect for oneself and superficiality more than anything else.