Cool song about getting friendzoned

Post Reply New Topic

On the appearance isn't everything concept?

I've posted in another thread about what's attractive in males. Looks are a factor but not a deciding factor. Neither of the guys who asked for my hand in marriage are eye-candy.

Conversely it seems to me that if looks were everything for guys, and if I'm all that good-looking even for an Aspie and good looks is enough to compensate for social awkwardness in male attraction to females--why don't I get flirted with, cat-called, wolf-whistled, asked for my phone number etc? NT women in my social sphere with mild obesity problems get more flirtation than I do. There are a small handful of guys who tell me I'm attractive. But I don't get much attention that way. Over and above MyEx and NTHubby, I can count on one hand the guys who have made passes at me in the 35 years since I left middle school.

So either I'm not pretty and looks are everything, or I am as attractive as those few guys have stated and looks aren't everything. Or even enough to get that initial moment of attention.

The reason some of us care about appearance is on the basis of biological health, something very important for future offspring. It's just human nature and, in my views, quite justified to care about looks.

But caring about looks doesn't necessarily have to mean wanting supermodels, it could also mean someone of decent looks and decent/average health, something perfectly reasonable and realistic.

"Conversely it seems to me that if looks were everything for guys, and if I'm all that good-looking even for an Aspie and good looks is enough to compensate for social awkwardness in male attraction to females--why don't I get flirted with, cat-called, wolf-whistled, asked for my phone number etc? NT women in my social sphere with mild obesity problems get more flirtation than I do. There are a small handful of guys who tell me I'm attractive. But I don't get much attention that way."

This is a fraction of my bigger belief that, in some cases, those with attractive/decent looks and a good personality still might not get anywhere near as much attention as one would expect, while physically unattractive people who might also have an awful personality can still get attention from decent/attractive people.

Without getting too carried away, I'll say I believe the short answer is that there are a lot of factors at play and sometimes looks or personality aren't as much as an influence as one would wish.

I'm posting in multiple part btw due to captcha

I suffer from this issue as well. I consider myself a decent guy, with decent looks and personality. I am confident that, while flawed, I am a generally decent guy who has plenty to offer in a relationship, without believing I'm perfect. In school I was liked for my confidence, charisma, eccentric behavior, determination, ambition, and calm, laidback, care-free, funny attitude. But i also occasionally did find conflict due to my aggressive-side, bluntness, political incorrectness and general harshness at times. Definitely not saying I'm one of those 'nice guys' and the girls only go for the 'a55h•les'. I'm not saying that at all.

Anyway, so I still do sound like an alright person, yet my first girlfriend was an extremely rude, (conventionally/culturally) ugly, selfish, aggressive person. She also had a soft, sweet-side, and was very protective of her friends, but also controlling and possessive. She had mental disability/learning difficulties, and was extremely unpopular and disliked by the rest of the seniors. I gave her a chance and saw her differently, only to be consistently hurt and stepped on by her. I am disappointed in the past that she was the 'best' I could do while all the other seniors were having successful, healthy relationships (which is true, the majority of HS seniors last year kept their relationships by the end of the year and are almost all still together).

My second girlfriend was far better, and made me realize I can do better than my first gf.

Why is this relevant? Because sometimes decent people can end up with not so decent people (and have bad relationships), and not do decent people can end up with decent people (but have good relationships).

And when it comes to female attention, well, in my experiences I've gotten far more attention than that. So if you're arguing males don't actually care about looks in your own experiences, I can argue with my experiences that women do.

An estimated 30 females have expressed an attraction to me, since I was 13, whether that be emotionally or entirely physical.

Like I have complained time and time again in other posts on WP, I can easily get attention for my looks, but it's my PERSONALITY that drives them away. I can post just pictures on dating site and get a decent amount of attention, but once I actually post details of my personality, I get very little attention.

Perhaps it's because I've started narrowing it down and weeding people out, typing long for instance and most people my age don't like that and i actually say if you don't like it they're probably not the person for me, etc. but still..

And, I'm done. Thanks again Captcha for making it impossible to get through no matter how many times I put it in, and thanks again for making me unable to type even just a paragraph before making me go through the security checks.

I cannot say for sure but it might have something to do with the way you dress......

Maybe. I have no sense of fashion and generally wear what looks good to me and is reasonable comfortable.

Unless of course I dress to NTHubby's taste, which is rather more provocative. e.g. tighter, heels instead of flats, stockings, showing at least a little leg above the knee, and--cleavage. It doesn't look as good as it did ten years ago though, as I have put on a little weight about the tummy.

I have a uniform I'm required to wear at work: slacks or an a-line below-the-knee skirt, blue black or khaki; and a polo shirt with the company logo. Also I don't do much with my hair other than wash it and comb out the tangles, and occasionally tie it back with a scrunchie to keep it out of my face. I wear glasses--ones I picked for how well they help me see, not how they look on my face or whether they're a current fashion trend type of frame. My hair is long--more than waist length--and long hair is supposedly attractive to many men, but only a handful say a word about my hair. Hubby likes it. I like it better when I color it lighter, instead of the natural dark blonde/light brown hair shade that it naturally is.

Anyway on weekends I wear jeans and t-shirt on Saturday, usually a skirt and blouse or a dress for church. Sometimes I get compliments on my outfit at church, sometimes I don't. But I stand by my opening statement in this post: I have no sense of style or fashion. Ford Prefect would never have called me a hoopy frood.

Different people have different aesthetic tastes in mates. One person might like a muscle-bound body-builder, and consider that 'healthy,' and another person might like a skinny endurance racer and think that is 'healthy.' The idea that the dominant paradigm has a lock on the only way one can be 'healthy' is a little silly, and a lot of what people concerned with appearances base their judgment on is actually a set of external fashions in makeup, hairstyles, and clothing that have nothing to do with health one way or the other.

If anything, most 'supermodels' are actually profoundly unhealthy in the sense that they are more likely to die young than the average person. They are encouraged/enforced to such a degree of thinness that many of them have electrolyte imbalances from malnutrition and several have had heart attacks from same.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luisel_Ramos
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... death.html
http://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle ... .features4
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hila_Elmaliach
http://juicy-news.blogspot.com/2007/01/ ... rexia.html

^^ Medical science can tell objectively what's healthy and what's not; people's subjective preferences won't change that.

A muscle-bound body-builder taking Steroids, GH and/or tons of supplements is medically-wise not healthy.

A super skinny model doing extreme diet or/and self-provoked vomiting is medically-wise, not healthy.

Being extremely underweight is always not healthy, regardless of the causes(it can be undereating, lifestyle or genetics).

A person who is obese or above the average weight for his/her height, regardless of the reasons and causes (it can be overeating, lifestyle or genetics), is medically-wise always not healthy.

A moderate chubby/thinness due to metabolism type, is often healthy.

A moderate well-built body due to genetics or/and sports, is often healthy.

Now there are some men who think being super skinny is 'healthy' for models, and there are women who think six-packs and a lot of muscles is always healthy for men (I did a long thread on that before).

Those men and women are simply simple-minded, they don't know what healthy means, and they are often very biased and defensive when you point that their fap materials are instances of unhealthiness.

Yes, I agree with FOB, that health is unfortunately scientifically objective.

Health, to me, is having a human body that ensures maximum biological functioning.

A big ripped bodybuilder usually is not the biologically ideal body.

To me, it is the body of our ancient ancestors, the ancient humans that survived through hunting and such.

Due to the time they lived in, they did not have access to the necessary food and equipment to gain muscle like we can today. Their physiques existed purely by adaption to their environment.

However, the life expetency for ancient humans was about 40 years. This is because of lack of access to the necessary food and nutrients, a high risk of diseases and health issues.

This is why I believe the MODERN EQUIVALENT is the ideal.

That is, for men, a 'thin but fit' body, with a moderate amount of muscle, low amount of body fat, moderate to high stamina and endurance, a fast metabolism, relatively low risk of disease of health issues.

For women, a slightly curvaceous body ideal for child-bearing/providing the child nutrients during pregnancy, moderate body fat, low to moderate muscle tone, moderate stamina and endurance, relatively low risk of disease, fast metabolism.

This body type may sound unrealistic at first, but for every 20-30 year old in this world in a moderately rich country with moderate access to necessary healthcare, exercise equipment and essential nutrients it is achievable, if somewhat expected if we as a species are to prevent the rising obesity epidemic.

Re 'looks' - what exactly is good looking, other than someone who you think looks good? What exactly is attractive, other than someone to whom you are attracted? We can try and find reasons for it, if we need to rationalise it, often with a handwave toward 'nature', whatever that actually means, but that still doesn't quite explain.

There are people who I find very aesthetically pleasing. I just want to go on looking at them, as I might a tree (I really like trees). Obviously I try not to do this in person! That s**t is creepy. But, for me, that is as far as it goes. Aesthetically pleasing is not enough to make me attracted to them, or make me wish we could get all up close and personal.

But attractive is something else altogether. Someone is attractive by who they are in their totality, and by something that is more than the sum of their aspects. Looks come into it, but more in there needing to be a lack of something particularly off-putting. It's almost a self-fulfilling thing. By my being attracted to them, I will find them physically appealing.

I could put up pictures of the women I've been attracted to, and rhapsodise about them and all that, and I wouldn't expect any response except a weary indulgence - 'yes, she's, uh, she sounds nice. Very good, Hopper'.

Similarly, I have no idea why people would find me attractive, but they definitely have. Diff'rent strokes, and all that.

True.
I had a very pretty co-worker for a while who got a lot of attention from guys; she had relatively low body fat and a slim figure, with nice muscle definition in her arms. Anyone seeing us side-by-side on the street would have said that she was 'healthier' than me. What wasn't apparent, though, was that she was an insulin-dependent diabetic and maintained her figure by skipping insulin doses, whereas I fight for mine by working out. She was in the hospital with DKA three times in the year that I worked with her, and eventually quit for health reasons.

I've also known women who refuse to work out either for endurance or muscle tone because they don't want to get 'bully' and 'unfeminine.' When your definition of a gender requires helplessness, there's a problem.

But when it comes to men, the physical feature that most women are universally attracted to is HEIGHT.

^ Not just that. If its that then its not a friend zone because she's not pulling your strings to make you think she may be interested in you/shes not ready now but isn't dismissing you.

Friend zone, at least to me, is when the other person KNOWS you're interested (aka you told them) and they play you along on purpose merely to keep you around because you are a useful convenience to them. When you cease to be convenient/useful they generally just cut off all communication and ignore you exist..until later when they suddenly need something from you again.