Seriously? Um, given your shitty attitude I sincerely hope you can’t relate to me.
Ok, and I was giving you my understanding- that physical attraction does not come from physical appearance alone. People can be turned on just by the sound of someone’s voice- that’s obvious physical attraction, and obviously not about appearance. So there are other characteristics that can make someone attractive, even if their physical appearance is ugly.
Is difficult the right word? It would be inaccurate for someone to argue that aren’t successful at dating because they are ugly when it is in fact because they are awful people, but it wouldn’t be difficult for them.
I won’t argue that it can never happen, but the odds are stacked heavily against it. There’s always going to be variations with individuals, but in my experience being ugly means you probably aren’t going to be successful at romance.
Are you referring to the ‘no one is actually ugly, everyone can be successful in romance’ argument?
edit
I understand that. What I maintain is that if someone isn’t physically attractive then they (probably) aren’t going to get a chance to display those other characteristics. Physical attraction may not be the end of it, but in my experience it is the beginning.
I’ll admit to struggling to find my niche here, but in real life I like most people and I’m not embittered about my genetic shortcomings, and take fairly good care of myself. One advantage that I do have over you is a lack of envy or resentment for beautiful people. You might learn from that, or tell me directly what I can learn from you.
That’s an advantage you think you have over me? Interesting.
In my experience, this only applies some of the time. Perhaps most of the time for the young (teens to early 20s), and only some of the time for late 20s to early 30s. Beyond that I have no experience, but I suspect that the older one gets, the less important physical appearance is in general.
If you see your apparent bitterness as a virtue, I suppose not. Advantage you!
These people may not be conventionally attractive but they all have character in their looks. They’re clearly photogenic enough that producers pay [some] of them big money to appear on screen. I’d have a very hard time characterizing any of them as actively ugly.
The way I’d characterize looks as far as attraction goes is to imagine being in a crowd. Some of the people in the crowd are so good looking your eye will be instantly drawn to them as you imagine what they look like naked (or is that just me…). Most people won’t draw your eye at all - they’re mostly neutral as far as attraction goes. Then the remainder may draw your eye because you’re actively repulsed by them.
Of the 3 - the only group you’d have absolutely no chance being attracted to at all are the repulsive ones. Of the neutral ones there are also going to be some that you just aren’t attracted to at all physically but some may have enough other features that that doesn’t matter so much. But for many of the neutrals, as you get to know them and see their personality, they can easily become very attractive to you.
If you’re (generic you’re, not referring to Clee) the type of person who is only attracted to a very specific type of body and look then that’s where it gets very hard to find people. But if you accept that a certain range of style, looks, and body types is attractive then it’s much easier to find people who make you happy.
You asked what we like, the majority of us have told you. Why did you ask if you were just going to argue that what we like (being referred to in a respectful manner, NOT being called “female”), is unimportant, and that you can do what you want no matter what we say?
None of us particularly care if you continue to do so, but it’s just cutting off your nose to spite your face. Most of us are going to consider it unattractive if a man calls us “females”, and it’s going to get you rejected IRL.
You’re completely missing the point. It’s not whether you’re calling us some clinical term that’s going to “make our head’s explode”. What it’s going to do is repel women. If that’s your goal, go for it. Arguing that you’re right, and we’re wrong for not liking that term isn’t going to make any difference, that term WILL turn women off re: being attracted to you.
I’m not here to argue, thats what all YOU have been doing, i didnt go looking 4 it.
Then quit bringing it up.
I’m asking for ideas not advice, and its not my job to conform to u. My goal is not to apply all u say. We’ll have to agree to disagree, and i ask u take it up in another thread if you wish but stop going off topic with talking about how you think i am using a term u dont like.
Gateway, you’ve received a lot of good and reasonable opinions in this thread- have you learned anything? Are you taking anything away from the thread?
Learned yes. Take away, likely
May I ask what you’ve learned, and what you’re taking away?
SILENCE Hu-Mon!!
Seriously. They prefer the term “women”. Referring to women as “females” makes you sound like either a cop looking for a robbery suspect or a dumbass.
Scanning this through this thread, you seem like the sort of person who not only is clueless, but for some incomprehensible reason absolutely refuses to accept a clue when offered. I mean if you can’t even learn to not use a term that several people have specifically indicated is offensive to them, how do you expect to grasp anything more nuanced?
I suspect it’s more the latter.
I’m not sure what the mystery is here. Women, in general tend to be attracted to the following (in no particular order):
-Tall
-Handsome
-Success
-Athletic
-Popular
-Fun
-Strong
-Outgoing
-Confident
-Good sense of humor
-Friendly
-Intelligence
-Creative
-Not socially clueless
So the more of these traits you have or can develop, the better.
Plus you have to work at it a bit. Most women aren’t going to just walk up to you and say “hey there! I find you attractive!”
Or just find a woman with low self esteem.
Sure.
They like to be considered as individuals
Naturally at ease around women
Productive
Those three, maybe something I haven’t remembered but is somewhere in my mind. Though taking away can possibly only be determined to us at a later date.
If by this you mean am I just taking this into account now, I think so. (Not going into past lives, oneness, etc.) May have heard it here or there before but doesn’t seem to have stuck in my conscious memory.
At what point did you realise this?
Gateway, I feel like there may be something a bit miswired in your head for real to not realize something like that. I learned this sort of thing when I learned that other people have agency and make their own choices - somewhere around 5 years old when someone chose to keep lying about me and then I chose to pinch them until they cried. After that it’s pretty obvious that people are different and make different choices - because they’re not making the ones you would make in the same situation. It’s not like you literally stop and say, “Oh wow! Matt likes it when I treat him as a human being and not like some sort of doll filler in my reality that has no emotions or thoughts!” but it’s supposed to be a thing you unconsciously realize when you figure out the world does not totally revolve around you.
Everyone thinks their own thoughts. Everyone acts on these thoughts. Everyone makes different choices. Everybody is different. Since they think and feel their own thoughts, they won’t like it when someone acts like they don’t have any. And since they won’t like that, it follows that they won’t like it when a whole set of people are treated as one lump object that all act the same.
It’s not something you learn and eventually start using at a later age when creating your game plan to get yourself a girlfriend/boyfriend. It’s supposed to be one of those things you learn as a fact of life, that influences every interaction you ever have with other people, even if it’s the customer in front of you in line at the grocery store or your grandpa.