Page 1 of 3

How much do looks matter to you?

Posted: Sun Oct 02, 2011 11:42 am
by angloconvoy
Just wondering. If you had the choice to either date a really hot person with whom you have nothing in common, or a very plain person who liked a lot of the same stuff as you, which would you choose?

Posted: Sun Oct 02, 2011 12:32 pm
by StoneCold Skywarp
why? you interested? :p

Personality > Looks

but it if she looked like a bulldog that's been hit in the face by a shovel, whilst chewing a wasp, making it's way down the ugly tree and bouncing off every branch on the way down then all bets are off.

How's you btw?

Posted: Sun Oct 02, 2011 12:46 pm
by angloconvoy
I'm alright, still in Japan. Yourself?

Fair point though, there is a limit, like, if the person fell out of the ugly tree hitting every branch on the way down, then being beaten severely with the resulting ugly sticks as punishment for damage done to the ugly tree. For me age has a lot to do with it (mine, not theirs). I reckon when people are younger they tend to worry about how others will view them if their significant other isn't "in their league", but as you get older you become more confident and able to say "I like what I like, and screw anyone who has a problem with that." That's just a theory though, so I'm interested in what folks here have to say, given we have some range in age culture and gender.

Posted: Sun Oct 02, 2011 2:48 pm
by Blackjack
Personal experience have revealed that many good-looking people out there are jerks. And those good-looking people that are also great people usually are already in a relationship. So if it's a straight-up match between looks and personality, I'd go for personality.

Like you guys said, though, if the guy fell off the ugly tree and hit every branch on the way down...

Posted: Sun Oct 02, 2011 2:55 pm
by Hound
I choose neither option as I managed to get a looker who is also extremely cool and amazing. I choose her...

Posted: Sun Oct 02, 2011 3:42 pm
by ΩΩΩ
This hypothetical stunner with whom I have nothing in common - how much of a talker is she? Because I'm more than willing to let her have her own independent interests if she doesn't insist on talking about them.

In fact, I'd go so far as to say that if she's fit, willing to sleep with me and I don't actually have to engage her in conversation, then it's check mate as far as I'm concerned.

Posted: Sun Oct 02, 2011 4:31 pm
by Cliffjumper
What he said[/Hardhead]. I'd say a lot of the people I chat to quite happily in day to day life have very little in common with me as long as their interests aren't diametrically opposed - me and Sar have a few areas we overlap in, and a pile more stuff neither of us is all that fond of that we just tolerate/ignore. It's more about compatible personalities than interests IMO.

I'm pretty sure anyone with that much in common with me would get on my tits, TBH.

I think you're in trouble with relationships if there's zero sexual attraction too. They'd have to hit some of your buttons at least.

Posted: Sun Oct 02, 2011 6:04 pm
by inflatable dalek
These days I just take what I can get.

Posted: Mon Oct 03, 2011 8:48 pm
by Sades
Is he making bank? That's allll that matters. How the hell else am I supposed to pay for my ridiculous handbags encrusted with giant pink and yellow diamonds and my hawt weave woven by that chick than can turn straw into gold with her spinning wheel? Damn, this gold-leaf manicure doesn't pay for itself! What am I supposed to do, work? Pft.
Cliffjumper wrote:It's more about compatible personalities than interests IMO.
This. Mostly. IMO for a relationship to work there's got to be attraction and compatibility on a day to day level, and (at least for me) a couple of things in common.
Hound wrote:I choose neither option as I managed to get a looker who is also extremely cool and amazing. I choose her...
Aw. <3

Posted: Mon Oct 03, 2011 9:27 pm
by Jaynz
God, I'm glad I don't have to worry about dating again.

But, honestly, you have to be attracted to someone before you're willing to find the 'depth'. They don't have to be super-hot, but there has to be something for that physical spark to occur. Without that, at best you're hitting the 'let's be friends' connection. (And that's fine, but the question was about DATING.)

Posted: Mon Oct 03, 2011 11:42 pm
by Warcry
Vanguard makes a good point. If you're not at least moderately attracted to someone, the question of dating them probably won't come up to start with. And the same thing holds true if the person's so vapid and irritating that you can't stand them.

I don't think either kind of relationship would be healthy, but if I had to choose between the two extremes I'd probably go for the one who was attractive but who had nothing in common with me. Not for stereotypical reasons, though.

Speaking from experience -- I love my wife, but that doesn't mean I want her with me every hour of every day. I'm glad that she's not interested in everything I am and that we spend time apart doing things that the other person doesn't want to do. That 'alone time' is important, especially when you're living under the same roof. Without it, no matter how much you've got in common two people will get sick of each other very quickly. Frankly, it's good that my wife doesn't understand why I enjoy sports or Transformers so much, and that I don't know what she sees in the silly vampire/werewolf/etc books and TV shows that she loves.

On the other hand, If you were dating someone that you didn't have much in common with at all you'd never have to worry about something like that. As long as you got along, you'd be able to enjoy the time you spent together for what it was even if it's not particularly satisfying emotionally.

But like I said...neither option is really healthy.

Posted: Tue Oct 04, 2011 6:00 am
by inflatable dalek
Sades wrote: Aw. <3
That's not an aw, cunningly saying something that sickly sweet where he knows you'll read it is an almost Machiavelli style ploy to earn some brownie points. Hound is a fiendish genius.

Posted: Tue Oct 04, 2011 6:11 am
by Sades
inflatable dalek wrote:That's not an aw, cunningly saying something that sickly sweet where he knows you'll read it is an almost Machiavelli style ploy to earn some brownie points. Hound is a fiendish genius.
Oh I know it. And he really is, he's totally a genius. An amazing one.

Posted: Tue Oct 04, 2011 6:12 am
by Hound
Sades wrote:Oh I know it. And he really is, he's totally a genius. An amazing one.
Aw. <3

Posted: Tue Oct 04, 2011 7:00 am
by inflatable dalek
Hound wrote:Aw. <3

No comment from her on your looks though.


See, my only pleasure from life is in destroying the happiness of others.

Posted: Tue Oct 04, 2011 7:35 am
by Sades
I'm totally only with him for his Fort Max.

Posted: Tue Oct 04, 2011 7:37 am
by Hound
Sades wrote:I'm totally only with him for his Fort Max.
There's your euphemism...

Posted: Tue Oct 04, 2011 8:00 am
by inflatable dalek
Hound wrote:There's your euphemism...
I have heard it fails the drop test though.

Posted: Tue Oct 04, 2011 9:55 am
by Sixswitch
Hound wrote:There's your euphemism...
Well, his Galen anyway...

</nerd>

Posted: Tue Oct 04, 2011 10:20 am
by angloconvoy
Ooh, nerdburn.

You know, I haven't found that most good looking people are jerks or involved. Mostly that most really good looking women I know make a lot of effort to look that way, and as a result a lot of their interests revolve around looking good (make-up, nail art and so on).I just don't have the patience to wait until 4 in the afternoon before we can go out because she has to look perfect in case a passing stranger might notice something awry with her fashion.

To clarify, as I was talking about dating, not just a, what's the polite way to say French Connection UK buddy, let's assume you have to talk to each other.
Also, when I say plain, let's assume some degree of sexual interest, as you find the person plain, not ugly.
Also, let's assume it's a hypothetical, and therefore you must go one way or the other, rather than sucking up to the missus ;) If it helps, imagine your perfect person has been split in two, one kept the looks, the other the personality. But let's assume the ugly one is, like, hollywood ugly.