Is it shallow to like a girl based on her appearance?

apeZ

apeZ

apeZ

Soldato
Joined
22 Sep 2008
Posts
4,300
Location
Kent, England
Following on from the other girl-related threads recently, I thought I'd chuck this question out there...

My opinion is that a girl has to be aesthetically pleasing to look at if i'm going to spend lots of time with her, I don't know why...there's just something much more attractive about good looking girls that makes me want to spend more time with them.

Might sound quite vain and shallow, but meh, I don't think I'm the only one. I like girls with nice personalities but if I don't find them physically attractive, I can't really see a relationship happening in the long run. The other reason I ask is because I've met someone recently who is awesome, even though I don't think she's the best looking girl I've ever seen, but hopefully I can see past that.

What are fellow OCUKers like? Do you think looks matter in the long run, or would you stick with someone based on their personality alone? Just curious :)
 
Absolutely not. It'd be shallow to like her solely because of her appearance, if for example she was painfully stupid or rude or boring or whatever.

If you're after a girlfriend, you need both. You need to like her and want her.
 
I find that even if I don't find a girl that physically attractive at first, it can change as I get to know her better. Not to say that a heifer magically becomes Claudia Schiffer, but a "plain Jane" can quickly become attractive as you dig deeper :)
 
You don't notice a personality across a room.

You notice it even less when you're both naked.
 
No.

I originally asked my wife out because I have always been attracted to the the same sort of girl - cute face, smiles a lot - and great cute body. Her looks sold her to me for the first week - and if she hadn't looked the way she did - I wasn't interested.

Luckily she had a great personality too (unlike the other 5 or 6 girls that fitted the same bill, looks wise - but were pains in the backside to go with and chat too) - so I stuck with her and ended up marrying her - Loving her loads and still having a great time with her - so I would hardly call it shallow.

Maybe I was just lucky - considering most of my friends have divorced now - they were originally married to a good looking but annoying/two timing slapper - or a fat/ugly nice girl with a great personality, who turned into even fatter/uglyer nice under 35 year old girl with a great personality - that they just couldn't look at or make love to anymore ;)
 
Last edited:
I'd say not, if her attractiveness was what kept you interested in her, then it's shallow.
Appearance is what initially attracts people. In general when you first meet someone, you don't know enough about them to judge them, but you have enough visual information so you judge them on that.

One thing I've always thought is that it is wrong to treat people based on factors that they cannot control. In general whilst you can control your physique to an extent, you can't control your looks. This is why things such a racism are wrong.
 
Good looks without anything to back them up are a novelty that wear thin. Literally, as we all go through natural aging. Not a good foundation for a long-term relationship.

I'll take an average looking, flat-chested girl who can hold intelligent conversation and has a heart, over a supermodel type that wants to chat X-Factor. Not that the two items are mutually exclusive, but I find the very attractive types with desirable personalities are extremely rare.
 
Let's just say I agreed to date a fat girl once trying to prove looks don't matter, she was a somewhat nice girl with interests similar to my own for the most parts but it doesn't work if you don't like there appearance. I was glad I got out of it actually because shortly after asking I realised I would have been in a short hell.

Needless to say looks matter but personality hopefully matters more. A great personality and average looks is better than great looks and average personality in my opinion.
 
Love is inherently utilitarian in my opinion. Therefore, it is by consequence, inherently selfish. The question is then, is this selfishness good or bad? To answer this we must ask ourselves if we can really hold matters of the heart to account when we have no true control. Love is basically amoral, not immoral. I think 'moral love' ('moral' being something done for an objective good as opposed to receiving anything in return) is something we have to teach ourselves and learn over time. It's a love we aspire to, but don't really achieve.

Simply put, morality and love are not bedfellows. However, I do not think this is a bye to allow individuals to act irresponsibly and recklessly to one another, as I am of the firm opinion that recklessness - even in matters of the heart - is immoral. It simply means that you cannot ever truly hold someone to account for choosing not to love you, or trying to coerce them into doing so. Love is - stepping neatly around all the sentimental smiles, sonnets and screenplays it creates - nothing more than a glorified pair-bonding process. It is from an objective point of view, nothing more than a biological process to which we have no true conscious control. We can consciously narrow down who we ideally wish to fall in love with, but we cannot ever control to whom and when that process will eventually happen.

In trying to narrow down your search, you are perhaps being a little immoral/bad, but I wouldn't lose any sleep on it, as it's just an inevitable consequence of being a mammal. That said, it could also be seen as a psychological form of hedging your bets and chasing an ideal, which from a utilitarian perspective is infact moral. An individual on either extreme (all looks, no personality; all personality, no looks) is unfortunately, undesirable. But then, that does depend on your ideal in the first place.

Personally, I need the whole package; looks and personality. Indeed, I'm selfish enough to admit it too.
 
Why would i kiss someone i didn't find physically attractive? Being shallow is fine. After all, how healthy would the relationship be if you couldn't look at your partner? :p
 
Nix said:
It simply means that you cannot ever truly hold someone to account for choosing not to love you, or trying to coerce them into doing so.
Click to expand...

I used to do this all the time. Once again, I'm talking about the platonic love. I just couldn't understand why they didn't want to be friends
 
Nix said:
Love is inherently utilitarian in my opinion. Therefore, it is by consequence, inherently selfish. The question is then, is this selfishness good or bad? To answer this we must ask ourselves if we can really hold matters of the heart to account when we have no true control. Love is basically amoral, not immoral. I think 'moral love' ('moral' being something done for an objective good as opposed to receiving anything in return) is something we have to teach ourselves and learn over time. It's a love we aspire to, but don't really achieve.

Simply put, morality and love are not bedfellows. However, I do not think this is a bye to allow individuals to act irresponsibly and recklessly to one another, as I am of the firm opinion that recklessness - even in matters of the heart - is immoral. It simply means that you cannot ever truly hold someone to account for choosing not to love you, or trying to coerce them into doing so. Love is - stepping neatly around all the sentimental smiles, sonnets and screenplays it creates - nothing more than a glorified pair-bonding process. It is from an objective point of view, nothing more than a biological process to which we have no true conscious control. We can consciously narrow down who we ideally wish to fall in love with, but we cannot ever control to whom and when that process will eventually happen.

In trying to narrow down your search, you are perhaps being a little immoral/bad, but I wouldn't lose any sleep on it, as it's just an inevitable consequence of being a mammal. That said, it could also be seen as a psychological form of hedging your bets and chasing an ideal, which from a utilitarian perspective is infact moral. An individual on either extreme (all looks, no personality; all personality, no looks) is unfortunately, undesirable. But then, that does depend on your ideal in the first place.

Personally, I need the whole package; looks and personality. Indeed, I'm selfish enough to admit it too.
Click to expand...

That's pretty deep (and you have probably scared away the 3000 or so thread readers who are going to post 'Pancake' or 'O'rly' or the other useless replies that take two brain cells to constuct, and were funny in 2008) - it's refreshing to read and a nice change.

Have to agree - the whole package is so important for a lasting thing..... but looks sell it at the start :)
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom