Why do you care about physical attractiveness in a relationship?

[CoffeeDrinker]

I won't entertain any notions of attraction somehow indicating that this person has a superior gene pool.
This is a superior gene pool:
How many of you guyz fell in love with that?

Whatever it is based on, it does matter a great deal to me. It's the initiating factor in who I go after. I'll totally reject personality and intellect for the right kind of good looks that I like.

Dude, you're an idiot...the bottom one is definitely photoshopped, and since when did genes have anything to do with steroid use? All bodybuilders use steroids, male and female....well there are such things as "natural" competitions, but they still use as many supplements as they can get away with.

And anyway, that has nothing to do with the genes in question...a girl looking like a man...umm...how would that lead to a reproductive advantage again?

 

[Chainer]

imo a striking physical appears cognitively effects humans as social creatures. I believe we are wired to go after what we desire - if we are conditioned or evolutionarily wired to be attracted to someone because of looks, it does make sense. It's not based entirely off of sexuality, there are many mental issues deeply connected with physical beauty. People see what they want to do, generally. A woman who looks like she goes to the gym, eats healthily, and maintains an appeal look to me implies that they have a level of respect for themselves, and are working to improve. I think that's sexy in it's own way.

As for those "genetics" being an anti-proof - that's not natural, nor the norm, you're looking for extreme outliers. If anything, you should be arguing that those women are physically attractive to someone, and that beauty is in the eyes of the beholder. We all have our preferences. I would argue that their appearance is attractiveness for myself, and that I would be much less likely to start a relationship with someone like that, because clearly they have an addiction to something that is left unaddressed, something that would worry me in a long-term relationship (which I assume we are getting at, here).

I also find that an attractive girl is one who I will want to approach more then an unattractive one. If the mentality doesn't match the looks, then the attraction does not foster into something greater. If the intellect matches the god-given or worldly-earned beauty, then something greater will certainly foster. I think there are a great number of socio-economic reasons behind this, as well as humanities general admiration for striving for excellence in all forms.

 

[MyFinalRest]

Dude, you're an idiot...

No you are. To think that humans have some secret genetic decoders in their eyeballs and brains that cause people to recognize "good genes as attractive" is fucking stupid. There are plenty of very attractive people carrying shitty genes.

I can't believe you take those photos that damn seriously. Don't try to cross the street by yourself okay?

Not all muscular or athletic people use steroids. A lot of people with great genetics might not look so damn good.
A big, strong woman who is healthy enough to push her body to such limits will prevail over a dainty beauty who is under the same danger, thus, leading to a reproductive advantage. Also, how many big strong chicks die in childbirth? They pop out babies easier than I can take a dump.
Get over your pseudo-darwinian crap. There is no grand "scientific" explantion for much that goes on in human or animal behavior.

Physical attraction is a personal preference partly based on personal experiences and cultural perceptions, but it mostly remains a mystery.

 

[MyFinalRest]

I do have to say the physical attractiveness in and of itself isn't all that. I'd happily date a girl who I could relate to in other ways over a more attractive girl who I couldn't relate to. But...attraction still matters, and it also for me is shaped by more than bare looks, it's also the way she dresses, the way she walks etc.

I once dated a girl that pretty much any guy would say is hot, but there is just something about the way she presented herself, not to mention the way she acted, that never quite stirred me up.

 

[Rated E]

I won't entertain any notions of attraction somehow indicating that this person has a superior gene pool.
This is a superior gene pool:

I'm going to go ahead and assume that big muscles and a manly looking face aren't a sign of fertility in females.

How many of you guyz fell in love with that?

I assume most did not. However, there are males who are attracted to that. "Toned" is a category on many porn sites.

No you are. To think that humans have some secret genetic decoders in their eyeballs and brains that cause people to recognize "good genes as attractive" is fucking stupid. There are plenty of very attractive people carrying shitty genes.

It's a subconscious process. Surely there are attractive people with shit genes and vice versa. However, the general is the rule. Many of our perceptive processes are based on generalisations (this example may seem a bit far fetched, but when you pull up at traffic lights in a car, sometimes you can't tell whether you're moving or the car next to you is. Because our brain uses cues in the environment and makes assumptions.)

 

[GenericMind]

A better question is "why wouldn't you care about physical attractiveness in a relationship?" Looks are a trait just like anything else: Humor, intelligence, etc. and should be weighed when considering a potential mate.

 

[MyFinalRest]

@Rated E, True, some highly athletic women do cease to be fertile and can even miss periods from the intensive training, but there's lots of genetically healthy girls that don't look good and are plenty fertile. There's plenty of women around where I live who never get sick, can kick anyone's ass, and pop out a kid every nine months, but they aren't featured in People magazine for being "attractive." Why do you and Bob Dylan try to justify being physically attracted to someone with pseudo-science? Are you feeling guilty about it?

Good looks are not an expression of "better genes" unless it's something like down syndrome which severly affects physical appearance. You are making a value judgement where there is no proven connection. Men and Women carrying or even expressing genes that would lead to a less likely rate of survivability or reproductive advantage are not often showing it on their faces or their figures. It's okay, people on here like to try and establish firm "scientific" connections where none actually exist all the time. Nice to meet you.

 

[munki]

Attractiveness is subjective, but generally why wouldn't you want to be with someone that YOU are attracted to? That doesn't mean that the person has to fall within the narrow range of what the media hypes as beautiful, because beauty lies on a very wide spectrum.

I've noticed that more in love I fall with another person, the more beautiful he becomes in my eyes. Of course this is all related to his inherent personality, humor, intelligence, how he treats me, how healthy he is, etc. Its all very complex.

I have gone on dates with some guys who I didn't find very attractive, and it really never worked out. My beau mentioned at the beginning of our relationship that he actually experimented with dating women who he did not necessarily find attractive, and he came to the conclusion that he didn't want to go down that path.

Shallow? Perhaps...but since you spend so much time with the person you date, why wouldn't you want someone who is easy on YOUR eyes?

 

[JB]

Physical attraction is a personal preference partly based on personal experiences and cultural perceptions, but it mostly remains a mystery.

It's Voodoo hey?

 

[Rated E]

@Rated E, True, some highly athletic women do cease to be fertile and can even miss periods from the intensive training, but there's lots of genetically healthy girls that don't look good and are plenty fertile.

What do you mean by genetically healthy? Because it sounds like you're talking about genetically transmitted diseases. Let's just pretend for a second that people with genetic diseases aren't competing; don't you think there will still be different levels of attraction for different physical traits and features?

Good looks are not an expression of "better genes" unless it's something like down syndrome

Blonde hair may be indicative of genes for blonde hair. A symmetrical face may be indicative of genes for a symmetrical face.

A better question is "why wouldn't you care about physical attractiveness in a relationship?" Looks are a trait just like anything else: Humor, intelligence, etc. and should be weighed when considering a potential mate.

QFT

 

[Jblazingphoenix100]

Well, as an initial thought, if I'm not physically attracted to my partner or he's not attracted to me there will be no sex or tension, or that overwhelming desire to be with that person, or the initial pull that draws you towards each other. There might be a friendship, but not a relationship with serious romantic potential imo.

I would have to agree with this completely. I have a friend who I love dearly, we're there for each other financially; emotionally; we talk everyday on the phone pretty much, and we have great sex - but I don't find her attractive all the time and she's also 13 years older than me, so it can only stay as friends.

I know there are times where people look really ugly - like when they're upset, or seriously pissed off, but if you're not attracted to them completely and utterly, then you can do better, just aim higher.

I look at women and see whether they're fit, they have childbearing hips, the ass shape I like, a great smile, beautiful face, at least a handful of busoms, and this is just aesthetics and breeding - I obviously go a whole lot deeper when it comes to personality, but I have found that personality just isn't enough.

I would however go for someone who isn't necessarily the most beautiful person in the world, because beauty is subjective, and if I find them the most gorgeous person in the world at the time, that's really all that matters.

 

[CoffeeDrinker]

Nice to meet you.

Wish I could say the same thing about you, you goof.

Is it really a debate when you have no idea what you're talking about? I'm sure in your mind your logic isn't the product of faulty genes, but that's not how it reads to other people in the world wide situation room.

Actually an old highschool buddy of mine was dating this chick who was very very muscular, and she had to get two of her lower abs removed in order for her pregnancy to be healthy and come to term. As far as I know, she didn't get her abs back...I can't image what that mess looks like now...she was always bitchy too... Now, that doesn't prove anything, but it sure is a bit of anecdotal evidence that sticks with you for some time.

 

[rincewindrocks]

genetics. a physically attractive person is more likely to e healthy

 

[MyFinalRest]

Sorry, but I still don't think that humans can subconsiously perceive anything on the genetic level that would thus lead to thinking someone is physically attractive. Be careful about trying to make universally applicable "scientific" value judgemnets about human behavior.

 

[MyFinalRest]

A) Genetics made her look like this.
B) "Good Genetics" made her look like this.

One of the above statements is a sound scientific theory...one is an opinionated value judgemnet...

Also, that which is beautiful is not necessarily useful, i.e. a "reproductive advantages, healthiness etc."

Sure, beauty in and of itself is useful to humans, but not for some purpose that has a simple, rational explanation.

 

[simmerman]

Yes i like this discussion so far so ill post a quick reply already instead of reading 1000 posts. Physical attraction to me i hate to say it is the number one thing i look for in a woman. Do i believe in love at first site. Absolutely because i have only been in 2 long term relationship's my whole life and both of them agreed with me that when our eye's met it was instant physical attraction that brought us together. Now the relationship faded but they are still pretty and vice-versa. See with me im not lying or tooting my own horn. I model im above average looking. Very Handsome and its easy for me to obtain a girl of the same standing. But their are gorgeous people with ugly people beyonce and JZ great example. People assume oh its about the money. No it is not. for some looks just do not matter as much as they fade like the MOD said earlier. The reason they matter to me. Is because yes the Gene pool but at my age with my sex drive. Its all Psychological when it comes to attraction and stimulation. In the Brain, its proven men are more visually stimulated, while women more emotionally. Just i cant have sex with an unattractive woman. I dont know why its purely psychological, they just do not turn me on, and sex is a huge part of any relationship. She can be the sweetest richest, women in the world. But i would not be with her, Because if im not attracted to her sex just would not happen. And just me i tried it even drunk and it doesnt work for me. And through out my life i have been fortunate up to this point. Its like every girl i find attractive enough to have any relations with always finds me attractive back. I mean its like i was touched by the hand of God. Am i irresistible not at all because other women found me unattractive and told me so. But before they did i also did not

^ absolutely.

But I guess by "physical attractiveness" I never thought the OT meant "beauty".

I though he meant someone I am physically attracted to, and there are some damn hot sexy ugly guys out there! It can just be the way someone carries themselves, the way they look at you, a smell, a tone of voice... but the chemistry definitely needs to be there imo for it to work.

 

[CoffeeDrinker]

A) Genetics made her look like this.
B) "Good Genetics" made her look like this.

One of the above statements is a sound scientific theory...one is an opinionated value judgemnet...

Also, that which is beautiful is not necessarily useful, i.e. a "reproductive advantages, healthiness etc."

Sure, beauty in and of itself is useful to humans, but not for some purpose that has a simple, rational explanation.

That picture is hard to go by because you get no good look of how her whole body looks, and you are definitely either over-thinking this thing, or just approaching it all wrong because it's pretty simple, as it is with most advantageous genetic adaptations. If a girl's face is beautiful, she will have a larger pool to choose from, and, presumably, pick the candidate with the best credentials over-all. I can't really tell how her pelvis will hold up in pregnancy just from a face alone, but that's hardly the central reason I like my woman with sexy curves over this girl who looks positively stick-like.

I have no idea what your point even really is anymore. If it's to say that the genes for the face and breasts won't necessarily tell you information about genes for some latent genetic disease that could spring on her when she's in her 50's, then I agree (though genes do tend to coexist within certain probabilistic ranges so if you really knew the science, then you could make fairly accurate generalizations based on seemingly unconnected information), but if you're somehow denying that genes for a beautiful face aren't genes for a beautiful face, then you are barking up the wrong tree, but, again, I can't really tell what your point is to begin with other than being a goofball.

BTW, she's kinda got a man jaw/forehead...I just now realized lol

 

[PriestTheyCalledHim]

I care about it because I'm highly attracted to women who are short/thin like me as I'm 5'8"/120lbs, and who are white and/or Latina.

I'm only attracted to men who are white/Latin and some Latino men, who have dark hair, and they must have some facial hair and keep it on their face always like I do.

This is if we're only going by physical characteristics only. Don't ask me why I'm attracted to men and women who are my types since it's just random.

 

[MyFinalRest]

@coffee, my god. WTF? You are calling beauty an advantageous genetic adaptation when beauty is a concept that highly differs from person to person and culture to culture? What's scientific about that?

Even the most attractive women (if you could actually judge that by some universal standard) aren't necessarily picking the "most advantageous" mates to "breed" with.

WTF do you not get about what I'm saying? I'm simply saying that sexual attraction is almost entirely a haphazard process and may or may not result in anything advantageous on the genetic level. You are trying to draw up some evolutionary "master plan" that we are all supposedly following when we feel that someone is attractive. There is no such thing.

WTF is physical attraction then? You just said that Megan Fox is unattractive because of her jaw and forehead. She looks damn good to me. You still need to face that there is nothing fucking scientific about physical attraction. It's too fucking random to tell us anything about genetics.

Genetics
See also: Heterozygote advantage and Major Histocompatibility Complex and Sexual Selection
New studies are exploring the genetic basis behind such issues as facial symmetry and body scent and how they influence physical attraction. In one study in which women wore men's T-shirts, researchers found that women were more attracted to the bodily scents in shirts of men who had a different type of gene section within the DNA called Major histocompatibility complex (MHC).[38] MHC is a large gene area within the DNA of vertebrates which encodes proteins dealing with the immune system[39] and which influences individual bodily odors.[40] One hypothesis is that humans are naturally attracted by the sense of smell and taste to others with dissimilar MHC sections, perhaps to avoid subsequent inbreeding while increasing the genetic diversity of offspring.[39] Further, there are studies showing that women's natural attraction for men with dissimilar immune profiles can be distorted with use of birth control pills.[40] Other research findings involving the genetic foundations of attraction suggest that MHC heterozygosity positively correlates with male facial attractiveness. Women judge the faces of men who are heterozygous at all three MHC loci to be more attractive than the faces of men who are homozygous at one or more of these loci. Additionally, a second experiment with genotyped women raters, found these preferences were independent of the degree of MHC similarity between the men and the female rater. With MHC heterozygosity independently seen as a genetic advantage, the results suggest that facial attractiveness in men may be a measure of genetic quality.[41][42]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Physical_attractiveness

That's as far as any real science regarding physical attraction, as it relates to genetics, goes. I understand this shit. You're the one who's goofing.

 

[simmerman]

Well wouldnt someone that is considered extremely obese or fat as some people like to call it. That is very unattractive to some people. Not all but the majority do not find fat people appealing. And on top of that its not healthy looking for your gene pool per. say. because being overweight is known to carry many long term health risks. So for certain people the way they look even if they are too skinny can suggest anorexia, disease ect. So im not sure what you mean by that. We are not just talking about looks in the form of us wanting to reproduce our race with a compatiable women or man of equal gene pool, but if that was the case than there are disquailifier's im saying when it comes down to sex. I would love to be with a firm nice looking female to screw anytime. And its always the pretty one;s that have the STD'S i assume cause they are having sex more often so with the advantage also comes the risk.

@Rated E, True, some highly athletic women do cease to be fertile and can even miss periods from the intensive training, but there's lots of genetically healthy girls that don't look good and are plenty fertile. There's plenty of women around where I live who never get sick, can kick anyone's ass, and pop out a kid every nine months, but they aren't featured in People magazine for being "attractive." Why do you and Bob Dylan try to justify being physically attracted to someone with pseudo-science? Are you feeling guilty about it?

Good looks are not an expression of "better genes" unless it's something like down syndrome which severly affects physical appearance. You are making a value judgement where there is no proven connection. Men and Women carrying or even expressing genes that would lead to a less likely rate of survivability or reproductive advantage are not often showing it on their faces or their figures. It's okay, people on here like to try and establish firm "scientific" connections where none actually exist all the time. Nice to meet you.