I really don’t see why there couldn’t be some sort of correlation. Why could not physical appearance be one of the pressures that shapes the development of a person’s character?
Will good looks shape your character?
I worked with a fellow who fit the blond surfer boy image pretty well. He did horse steroids and was always looking down at his chest and flexing his pecs, to the point of comment by other people. He was very concerned about what car he drove. He tried to hang around with rich kids (he was not rich). He told me he could not be happy in life unless he made upwards of $300,000 a year. He was a braggart and disliked by many.
He was my friend, but he was shallow and vain. Much of this I put down to his youth, but I suspect he would never have outgrown it. I will never know. He died, age 25, while test driving a Corvette which he did not have the means to buy (the other driver ran a light going 110mph). He just wanted to look good driving a 'Vette around for a while.
Being attractive shaped his development and character. Being “not rich” also shaped it. As luck would have it, you could say it killed him.
Does a beautiful girl have an easier life? Does an ugly girl have to work twice as hard?
Is a rich man amoral? Is a poor man pure?
Do the advantages of birth impart weakness? Does hardship give strength?
Does not being pretty make one need to attribute moral defects to pretty people?
I think you’ve been on this board long enough to know the answer to THAT question.
What do you think all those high school beatings were for!
Seriously though, most of it comes from observation and self awareness and to that you need to be around other people. 90% of communication is non-verbal. So if you are spending all your time online, not talking to people, not hanging out with people, you are not learning how to communicate in 90% of the bandwith people use.
I’m sure to a certain extent it does shape a person’s character. The problem is, it doesn’t unilaterally shape a person to be one way only. Everything about you shapes your character, this website is just another stupid victim-mentality circle jerk for those who think the reason for their dating woes is because mainstream society doesn’t find them attractive enough. It’s the perfect way to wallow in your own self-pity with others who feel similarly not responsible for the events in their lives.
The ironic thing to me is that it just tries to scream about how “very not shallow we all are” when the truth of the matter is even individuals on that site will largely select desired mates based on physical attractiveness.
Oh that’s just bullshit. To even visit such a site requires a certain amount of humility as it requires you to think of yourself in terms that any mentally healthy person would consider demeaning. If you want to argue that all of the participants are mentally impaired, that’s another ball of wax entirely but even that would be an impossible argument to make convincingly.
Self-pity circle jerk indeed. Bloviate much?
Yes that’s it. I don`t mean to be mean spirited, laughing at people who don’t have great social skills. I think it could be helpful to some people. There’s just something amusing about the way it’s written.
Humility? Right. It has nothing to do with humility. It’s false humility as far as I’m concerned, like thinking the only reason you can’t get a date is because you’re not conventionally pretty. Maybe you’re just an asshole, you don’t keep up on your hygiene, you aren’t interesting to be around, etc. It’s just always such a convenient reason for why whatever thing in someone’s life ended the way that it did, blaming an unrelated quality one possesses. For a very long and protracted thread on the subject, search “Nice Guys” and “Autolycus”.
You’re absolutely correct in saying that it’s not mentally healthy, but mental health is not only for the pretty. I’m not arguing that they’re all mentally impaired, I just think the site is built on a bullshit premise of “all the ugly people come here to date because here we are deep enough to love you, not toss you astray because of your looks, where the rest of society is not capable of doing that”. The other bullshit premise the site is built on is the idea that ugly people have responded to the merciless teasing of society by becoming somehow kinder, gentler, more loving, and more loyal than so-called pretty people. Ugly people are not more valuable humans because they are ugly.
If the site is legit, then why have pictures posted on profiles? If so-called ugly people are so deep and beyond the trivialities of physical appearance, then why do they copy the exact format of the sites they exist to defy?
Your revised analysis a bit easier to swallow but still flawed.
First, I think you are getting wooshed by some of the comments on and about the site, such as the quote from the site’s founder in this thread’s title. I seriously doubt that quote is meant literally and universally. If it is, then you have a point, but not otherwise.
I suffered several tragedies when I was very young and although I can’t know for certain because of my age at the time, I’m fairly sure that they irrevocably changed my view of life and relationships. I saw my grandfather die of a thrombosis after having a leg amputated. That was when I was 5 or 6. When I was 6 I was told I would die from encephalitis, and nearly did. Instead I got away with just brain damage. A few months later I saw my father’s cyanotic body wheeled from our home after a fatal heart attack. There’s more but you get the idea.
You don’t go through those types events and walk away as the same person you were before. That is the point. I doubt that I would always look for the worst possible outcome in situations had I not experienced first hand what it’s like when you get precisely that. Who else is going to understand that attitude except someone who has been through a similar experience? Any relationship requires common frames of reference. If you have no idea why I like certain things or respond in certain ways, what kind of relationship can we ever have? Only the most shallow. And while I think that a shallow relationship is ideal for certain types of people, it is anathema to others - regardless of appearance or any other observable factor.
The way you look will in part determine what kind of experiences you have. It doesn’t dictate anything but it does make certain types of experiences more likely. To the extent that this is true, it means that you are likely to share certain experiences with others whom society has regarded in a way comparable to the way you have been regarded. And shared experience is at least one basis for deeper and more fulfilling relationship.
I think that basic idea is all that is really involved here. I would regard any sweeping pronouncements as puffery. Yes, they play into a certain stereotype and yes some people are naive enough to buy stereotypes in toto. But as a general rule, they are seen for being what they are - over-generalizations that have some element of truth but are certainly not universally true.
Second, your statements are as much baseless generalization as most of the comments you seem to find objectionable. I mean really, how do you even work something like personal hygiene into the conversation? Even you have to admit that many times a person will be pursued by a potential lover purely on the basis of appearance. So why isn’t it possible that someone would be avoided or rejected purely on the same basis?
As a man with a fairly androgynous appearance I get the full range of reactions from people. Some find me attractive, others see me as average and I’m sure others think me completely unattractive - although I can’t say that I’ve ever been ridiculed for my appearance. And I’ve had enough female friends to know that “chemistry” is based in large part on physical appearance. It may not be the predominant factor, but it is very high on the list. So it is not difficult to believe that someone whom society in general regards as ordinary or sub-par would have to make a much greater effort in order to appeal to a larger audience of potential mates.
Does that mean that all such persons do make such an effort? Of course not. But is it statistically more likely that, as a group, they do? That they would seems fairly obvious to me.
I do understand where you’re coming from with regard to shared experiences and that becoming a potential form of bonding. I don’t have a problem with the idea that sites devoted to people in similar circumstances provide a valuable benefit for those individuals. The issue is that the idea of “ugly” is based on purely subjective experiences and conditions, and these experiences are far more likely to be the norm than any particularly unfortunate subset of humanity. Many, many people have self-image issues. Many men and women have precariously low self-esteem that would lead them to say that they felt ugly, that kids teased them about their looks, leaving them with a lasting impression that they are indeed unattractive.
My problem with that is that if you accept that premise, that this is for the purpose of bringing people together who have shared baggage and similar psychological damage, then you cannot by definition accept that the purpose of the site is to overcome that barrier. By identifying with an “ostracized” group and creating a subculture for it, you’re reinforcing that label. You aren’t overcoming anything. How do you create a relationship, a healthy relationship built upon all those healthy things relationships are based upon, when the site is itself self-deprecating.
To be sure, I am not arguing that attraction does not play a role in the dating game. I have stated the opposite several times, which is part of the reason I find the website so ridiculous. It makes a big giant stink about how mean society is for judging people based on physical appearance, and then somehow magically, it attempts to avoid the same pitfalls by…doing the exact same thing that other dating sites do.
Ugly people are swayed by physical appearance and its influence over the decision to pursue a person, it’s just that the threshold is lower. To pretend like so-called ugly people are somehow immune to what amounts to natural instinct like it’s some sort of moral high ground is what I call bullshit on.
Again, I think you read too much into the admitted advertising hype that the site uses. If you regard the ad copy as being ad copy and not statements of fact, I don’t see the problem. It’s like saying that your air freshener is the “best” in some sense. It’s meant to convey a sentiment not actual fact.
As for galvanizing a sense of victimhood or whatever, maybe yes, maybe no. It would depend on the person. However to the extent that is true, I think that can be valuable and beneficial. For example I’m into the goth ideology. I don’t dress in any way that could be considered goth except to favor black and gray in my collection of t-shirts (well, I drive a black car and avoid the sun, but I have my reasons for those things). But I definitely have a bias towards the mindset, ethos, etc. If I were to associate with like-minded people, how could that be a bad thing? I agree that sometimes you get sub-groups of sub-groups and that they can take things to an absurd extreme but that is the exception not the rule. In general, I think that us-them type groups can provide a support structure that is largely beneficial in spite of the occasional extreme outlier.
Also, I would dispute the extent of the perceived dichotomy. I doubt that most or even a large minority of the people involved go through life thinking of themselves as victims. Maybe a few adolescents who are tormented on a daily basis, but they shouldn’t be there to begin with. As an adult, it’s unlikely that you are subjected to harassment on a daily basis, or at least subject to such treatment and without any legal recourse. So the people who identify with the site’s concept will do so based mostly on childhood experience and the occasional negative adult experience. This site can provide a perceived safe environment to work through the feelings and even prejudices that have been so engendered. Again, that can lead to unhealthy expressions in a small minority of people but for those who are otherwise of sound mind, I see it as being nothing but beneficial. No one WANTS to wallow in despair and self-pity - which is what you seem to be suggesting.
My own observation is that, all things being equal, very attractive people who are very attractive from an early age tend to be noticeably less interesting than people who are attractiveness-challenged.
What is it with the attempts to make “attractive” people somehow morally inferior? Less interesting? How do you even say “all things being equal” with a straight face? Like you’ve done some sort of methodological study on the interestingness of pretty vs. ugly people.
Not being general questions I won’t go through the trouble of providing a specific citation, but I’ve read that attractiveness is typically directly proportional to IQ. This makes sense in terms of evolution, where the traits that are generally associated with all things ‘good’ are clumped together; the smart man gets the attractive girl, the child shares a combination of both these traits and is also taught to appreciate these traits.
The correlation is modest, but it seems to suggest that the stereotype that attractive people are somehow inherently more shallow is just bs. This is of course assuming that IQ is a good indication of interesting and witty people; these characteristics, I think, are universally appreciated.
There really ought to be a site that hooks up ugly people with blind people. Think of the increased opportunities for each party to get dates!
The Picture of Dorian Gray. Everyone wishes that morality was physically apparent. It isn’t. Ted Bundy is one example. Morality and charm have zero connection.
Charm = social intelligence. Ugly = mental/emotional issues. Whoa.
A matter of priorities, not morality. The absent mined professor with his hair askew. The butch bowlcut on a middle aged woman that says I quit caring how I look. That communicates a disconnect with society at large. Looking at the ground all the time. Mumbling. Tooth decay. Mental decay.
Did I piss you off? Sorry. Count me among you. I may state things like a fact, but it is a prolonged question.
Look at Dennis Hopper. He is demonstrating his communication skills. Cheezy, but effective. You can tell he practiced. You can see that communication is a high priority with him.
Dennis Hopper in an Andy Warhol screen test
I am attempting to improve. Previously, I had little interest in other people, I was just too busy. Curt answers, intimidating stares, lack of eye contact, silence. When approached, my inner voice said, “Who the hell is this and what do they want from me now?”
My priorities have changed for various reasons. I now need social interaction, but have low skill. I make an meager attempt and try to improve. Priority has a great deal to do with it.
Lack of success, despite effort leads to a)mental funk b)giving up. Both of those, unlike morality, are readily apparent to everyone. The important thing is to improve. Star Jones and Oprah come to mind as people who try and succeed in having style and panache.
So, does ugly reflect mental funk? Yes. Sometimes all it takes is a small effort. A nice scarf. Neat hair. Eye contact. A smile. Communication and positive energy are attractive. Lack of them denotes either a priority issue (which may be unavoidable) or mental divergence.
Are attractive people mentally sound with proper priorities? No more than average. Are the “People of Walmart” emotionally or mentally unstable? Probably much more than average. Failure to be self aware communicates mental/emotional issues.
You can’t help what you were born with. Or can you?
Whoever wrote that has clearly never watched a beauty pageant.
This article suggests that, at least for the younger age groups, there is indeed a correlation.
And has any of the authors ever watched a beauty pageant?