Page 1 of 1 [ 15 posts ] 

Who_Am_I
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 27 Aug 2005
Age: 36
Gender: Female
Posts: 12,630
Location: My body is in Brisbane and my mind is in the gutter. :D

09 Feb 2013, 6:17 am

I've seen a bit of confusion in this subforum and offline about standards vs. preferences.
It usually seems to take a couple of forms
1. Someone gets rejected, and they ask angrily "What, wasn't I good enough for that person?", when really it wasn't a case of good enough or not good enough, it was just a case of person A preferring people who are not like person B.
(To give an example, I prefer introverts, but that doesn't mean I think extroverts are inherently worse. It's a matter of compatability, not ranking.)

2. Someone is having trouble getting a date, and someone suggests that they try approaching/considering people who wouldn't be their first choice, and instead of interpreting that as "try to expand your preferences" they take it as "lower your standards".

Thoughts?


_________________
Music Theory 101: Cadences.
Authentic cadence: V-I
Plagal cadence: IV-I
Deceptive cadence: V- ANYTHING BUT I ! !! !
Beethoven cadence: V-I-V-I-V-V-V-I-I-I-I-I-I-I-I-I-I-I
-I-I-I-I-I-I-I-I! I! I! I I I


nessa238
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 1 Jul 2011
Age: 54
Gender: Female
Posts: 3,908
Location: UK

09 Feb 2013, 8:56 am

I think that relationship stuff is held in a module in the brain and some peoples' relationships module is just faulty and it doesn't matter how much advice you give them they'll never be good at it

There's another module for friendship

My friendship module is definitely faulty but my relationship module seems to work relatively ok

That is the only way I can rationalise what I see happening

I seem to know what to do in terms of relationships instinctively but I'm just plain stupid where friendships are concerned
hence never feel very secure in them

So my module theory explains these discrepancies - it means that two separate 'units' or areas in the brain deal with friendship
and relationships

Some people have both intact and working ok but usually one or the other and sometimes both aren't working properly



Wolfheart
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 17 Feb 2011
Age: 30
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,971
Location: Kent, England

09 Feb 2013, 9:01 am

It's the old black and white thinking coming in to play in which people magnitude their failures and minimize anything positive from it, they fail to take it as a positive learning experience or to filter out why they didn't connect with this person and the cycle repeats itself. Cognitive behavioural therapy can be helpful with this problem as it can help shed a new light on the perspective and as you said, people can see that rejection isn't always a case of not reaching a specific criteria or target.

Some people are better as friends, some people aren't compatible, some people just aren't meant to be together, some personality types don't suit each other, it's just how it is.



nessa238
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 1 Jul 2011
Age: 54
Gender: Female
Posts: 3,908
Location: UK

09 Feb 2013, 9:05 am

In my opinion it's mainly due to people being too influenced by media stereotypes, to the extent that if the person doesn't conform to a set of unrealistic expectations they won't want them

And when they meet someone who does meet these expectations, not surprisingly, that person will have their own long list of requirements in a partner and the other person won't stand a chance in hell!

So lowering expectations and going for a quirkier, more unusual look is always a better thing to do as there's more people available at that end of the market and far less competition

If you want someone who looks like a model, take your place at the end of very long queue because that's what the majority want

It's obvious that you need to tailor your requirements to fit in with what you yourself are bringing to the table



hyperlexian
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Jul 2010
Age: 48
Gender: Female
Posts: 22,023
Location: with bucephalus

09 Feb 2013, 9:44 am

i think it comes from people's own sense that whoever they find most attractive must be inherently "better" than anyone else. people have an elevated sense of the importance of their own thoughts/feelings/attractions, almost like whatever originates in their own self must be especially precious. so if they believe in Christianity, love broccoli, and prefer blondes, they consider those things to be special [/i](even though they may give lip service to the idea of "personal preferences").

so by default... atheism, carrots,and brunettes are kind of lesser to that person so standards would have to be lowered to appreciate those things. for the brunettes, a person may not think they are lesser in non-dating contexts, so they are not discriminated against in any other area.

i've seen it generalised further, so that some people who appreciate blondes (for example) can't quite understand that other people might not. these people think that anyone who dates brunettes is lowering their standards because they can't understand anyone ever appreciating non-blondes because they are just soooooooo unattractive to their eyes. they see their preferences as not just individual but somehow correct and true, so they think their views must be universal.


_________________
on a break, so if you need assistance please contact another moderator from this list:
http://www.wrongplanet.net/postt237032.html


MXH
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 28 Jul 2010
Age: 29
Gender: Male
Posts: 13,029
Location: Here i stand and face the rain

09 Feb 2013, 11:16 am

Its two ways of describing the same thing. Standards/preferences is just a verbalization of the internal structure we have on rating people and things. Each person has a different method and different criteria and weights. Which is why we all seem to have different taste. Though a lot of those things can overlap, which is why we often hear people referencing to men and women having specfic likes. Its not that everyone in that group has the same like, its that its something so many do like that its almost standardized.



aspiesandra27
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 8 Nov 2012
Gender: Female
Posts: 825
Location: london

09 Feb 2013, 12:12 pm

In my case I must be exceptionally different then.

I don't fall for the stereotypical "beauty". I also don't necessarily agree that my preferences, are "better" than anyone else's. Just mine at the time. Physicality is something I know is irrelevant up to a point. Never judge a book by its cover.

The only thing I have said that might be a deal breaker in dating a guy, was if he was shorter than me. But I am quite petite so I am not being unreasonable. But giving it more thought, if a guy I loved, suddenly became a dwarf, I certainly would adapt to that and it wouldn't be a problem.

I also never mock others because they are too fat, too skinny, too this, too that. The only negative for me is stupidity and cruelty. That winds me up big time, and it's not negotiable.



EmoGlambertAspie
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 24 Jun 2010
Age: 27
Gender: Female
Posts: 557

09 Feb 2013, 1:13 pm

One of my standards is that I canNOT date someone to whom I am not completely attracted. I tried it before because the guy was "nice" and I couldn't do it. It grossed me out to kiss him and when we'd go out I'd notice and want other, far more attractive men. I hate when women get labeled as shallow, evil b*****s because we won't date someone we don't have feelings for.

Now, a PREFERENCE of mine when it comes to looks is curly, Jewfro-type hair and muscles that are toned and defined, but not veiny and grotesque.

Of course, I have other standards besides looks, but that's the inly thing I can think of that I've compromised on, and the only thing we seem pressured to compromise on lest we be labeled "cold", "shallow" etc.


_________________
"More people have been slaughtered in the name of religion than for any other single reason. That, my friends, that is true perversion." - Harvey Milk


aspiemike
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 8 Jul 2012
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,181
Location: Canada

09 Feb 2013, 2:13 pm

I've managed to change my standards. It's not so much about looks and appearance as it used to be. My standards now are based on "What kind of behaviour and attitudes will I put up with? What will I not put up with?"

Preferences on the other hand are more based on appearance. I prefer brunettes over blondes and women with round asses. It's a preference, but not a requirement.

Of course, regardless of what I said, I must be attracted to the person I am dating or establishing a relationship with.



nessa238
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 1 Jul 2011
Age: 54
Gender: Female
Posts: 3,908
Location: UK

09 Feb 2013, 5:04 pm

I never had a list of requirements in a partner

I'm either attracted to them or I'm not and have never had the luxury of being able to pick and choose from a queue of people

This has made it easier for me in my opinion as if I had loads of people to choose from I'd have to wade through loads of
people who looked good but had awful personalities probably, plus the good looking, arrogant types who want highly attractive women aren't good with rejection and can often get violent when they don't get what they want



JanuaryMan
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 1 Jan 2012
Age: 35
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,359

09 Feb 2013, 5:16 pm

Your preferences are what form your standards.



Kurgan
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 6 Apr 2012
Age: 31
Gender: Male
Posts: 4,118
Location: Scandinavia

09 Feb 2013, 5:18 pm

EmoGlambertAspie wrote:
One of my standards is that I canNOT date someone to whom I am not completely attracted. I tried it before because the guy was "nice" and I couldn't do it. It grossed me out to kiss him and when we'd go out I'd notice and want other, far more attractive men. I hate when women get labeled as shallow, evil b*****s because we won't date someone we don't have feelings for.


I've been there as well, apart from the fact that the girl I was dating was not "nice", but passive-agressive and cared little about my personality. Furthermore, I think men are labeled as shallow more often than women; despite the fact that men seem to care less about media standards and what friends think.

Quote:
Now, a PREFERENCE of mine when it comes to looks is curly, Jewfro-type hair and muscles that are toned and defined, but not veiny and grotesque.


Muscles look veiny because there's less fat covering them. All those underwear models with chiseled abs, but not a single visible vein, are photoshopped (or worse, have ab implants). Muscle vascularity becomes more apparent with age, because the skin gets thinner, the veins expand and the muscles become more grainy--this is called 'muscle maturity'.

Speaking from experience, in most cases, the veins in the arms, shoulders and quads are clearly defined long before the abs are. Testosterone causes men (and masculine women) to store fat over the abs and internal organs before the fat is stored elsewhere.



DialAForAwesome
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 4 Oct 2011
Age: 32
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,189
Location: That place with the thing

09 Feb 2013, 8:01 pm

Wolfheart wrote:
people can see that rejection isn't always a case of not reaching a specific criteria or target.


If this was true, nobody would ever get rejected.


_________________
I don't trust anyone because I'm cynical.
I'm cynical because I don't trust anyone.


Cafeaulait
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Jul 2012
Age: 28
Gender: Female
Posts: 2,512
Location: Europe

17 Feb 2013, 11:16 am

hyperlexian wrote:
i think it comes from people's own sense that whoever they find most attractive must be inherently "better" than anyone else. people have an elevated sense of the importance of their own thoughts/feelings/attractions, almost like whatever originates in their own self must be especially precious. so if they believe in Christianity, love broccoli, and prefer blondes, they consider those things to be special [/i](even though they may give lip service to the idea of "personal preferences").

so by default... atheism, carrots,and brunettes are kind of lesser to that person so standards would have to be lowered to appreciate those things. for the brunettes, a person may not think they are lesser in non-dating contexts, so they are not discriminated against in any other area.

i've seen it generalised further, so that some people who appreciate blondes (for example) can't quite understand that other people might not. these people think that anyone who dates brunettes is lowering their standards because they can't understand anyone ever appreciating non-blondes because they are just soooooooo unattractive to their eyes. they see their preferences as not just individual but somehow correct and true, so they think their views must be universal.


This is very true from my experience, especially the first part of what you are saying.
The only thing I have my doubts with is this idea: "a person may not think they are lesser in non-dating contexts". Perhaps true in some cases, in other others maybe not. Many people are not attracted to obese people. If you asked them: 'do you hate obese people as a group?' they would probably say 'No'. However, many people do carry negative stereotypes of obese people in general and find them weaker/not as good in some way (even though they don't actively and/or openly discrinate against them in non-dating contexts)



hyperlexian
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Jul 2010
Age: 48
Gender: Female
Posts: 22,023
Location: with bucephalus

17 Feb 2013, 11:18 am

yeah, i have wondered the same thing. i give them the benefit of the doubt, but i do suspect that what you say is true.


_________________
on a break, so if you need assistance please contact another moderator from this list:
http://www.wrongplanet.net/postt237032.html