Guys: How important are a woman's looks to you?

Post Reply New Topic

To anyone who said looks aren't important: you are lying. Even if you don't think you're lying, you're still lying to yourself. No one wants to enter a long-term relationship with someone who doesn't look healthy. Even if you want to say personality is more important to you, do you honestly think you would spend enough time with a woman that you do not find physically attractive to find out about their personality?

Looks will only catch our attention, personality is what keeps it.

But it terms of looks, isnt there a difference between healthy and hot, for example? And what I mean by that is, isnt "Healthy" a misleading term because what turns a person's head is a hot person (who naturally qualifies as healthy considering that most people would agree hot or someone who has looks that qualify as "goodlooks" possesses a nice body AND a nice face).

I meant looks are a factor for all of us, anyone who tries to say otherwise is delusional.

We don't necessarily have to only have interest in people who are "hot" (which varies depending on the individual's perspective), however no one wants to be with someone who would have to be on the moon to weigh less than 300lbs, someone who looks like a starving person, or someone who is horribly deformed. These things are usually considered repulsive, and they're all usually something associated with health problems. Biologically someone who's looking for a mate wants to be with someone who's healthy enough to last for a while. This doesn't mean that women have to look like supermodels, they just have to take care of themselves.

In other words, we all have a criteria for looks, but it's generally NOT hard to meet.

Ok, I guess what I did not understand here is what te OP meant by looks. Not many people are deformed, so naturally I thought looks as in "hotness" etc, but looks could be meaning anytihng from is hygenic, dresses a certain way, has certain features, or isnt overweight/underweight. Seems very general though.

MY opinion of her looks matters, not what others think of them though.

I voted somewhat as I have to have some attraction but cam cope with some 'flaws'.

Introspectively, if one is capable of genuine attraction, how can one tell the significance of appearance?

Beauty is manufactured in the mind of the animal who feels attraction - if attraction intersects always perception of physisical beauty, does this mean one finds only beautiful people attractive? Or that one's mind will make one find all people one is attracted to beautiful?

Certainly there is a base line - but can we not observe higher status males exclusively choosing "more attractive" women? There are, viewing the human animal from the outside, standards beyond the minimum.

A serious question; I will vote when I have resolved it...

...

the owl asks: But how do you know your metacognition is accurate?

I'm somewhat/not very depending on the girl.

I said "somewhat" because as long as they're not ugly, I'll end up growing more attracted to them.

lovvve that quote!

i'd say that attraction is very important, and looks are a big part of that. that being said, i'm attracted to a lot of women of all kinds of different body types, so as long as i find them attractive i'm happy.

I'd say it's important. Like someone else mentioned, you really can't force physical attraction. It either is or isn't there.
Every woman I've been attracted to has been good looking to me.
Realistically, most were pretty average looking though.
Beauty is in the eye of the beholder as they say.

This is a good poll, and in honest answer, i'd say important, just not very. I've mentioned in another thread my reasons, essentially i've met many attractive women, and most of them were boring and shallow. I'm looking primarily for a woman with a form of genius that inspires me.

Although i don't thin kthe results of the poll will do you any good. Asking people to say whow important looks are to them islike asking "on a scale of 1-10, how much of an a***hole are you?", your answers will be severely skewed.

For me women are either attractive or not. She either looks acceptably attractive or she's unattractive, and acceptable is all that it is needed. I don't know how common attractive women are by my standards. At a college party or something they can be 50% of the women there or more. At Wal-Mart, they're probably about 5% (I mean seriously). I think that my standards are pretty typical, maybe a little looser because I seem to have a greater range of what body types or facial features I find attractive than what is typical. Very skinny and pretty large can both be good, it depends on the person (body shapes vary a lot among the overweight, so only the symmetrical shapes with the curves all in the right places ).

I agree with you on this In order, my favorite parts of a women are the behind, hips, legs. then stomach.

Over the years, I have sort of lost my sex drive though, so nice bodies and good looks alone, just don't do it for me anymore. The perfect girl for me would have to be relatively decent looking (don't want a high-maintainence model or anything though) and have a good personality.

I realize that you have to be at least somewhat sexually attracted to the other person, or it just won't work. However, I've noticed that a lot of people have super-high standards, and have unrealistic expectations when it comes to the opposite sex, and wonder why they never find anybody (I know, because until recently, I used to be like this).

Then there are others that date people based on looks alone, and wonder why it never works out....DUHHH!

So, basically, what I'm saying is, 6's should stay with 6's, and 10's should stay with 10's. You also have to be compatible in terms of personalities, lifestyles, interests, values, etc.

yes it's important for a romantic relationship. People do grow on me over time if I like their personality and with the same token I can find an otherwise attractive person less attractive because of their actions.

Body is the first thing people notice in general, and thus despite our claiming to the contrary it does matter quite a bit.