RE: Looks and weight (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Ask a Master



Message


HatesParisHilton -> RE: Looks and weight (6/27/2009 7:08:22 AM)

Not really.  He described about half the women in London right now.

And about all of India.




SimplyMichael -> RE: Looks and weight (6/27/2009 8:14:09 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: BossyShoeBitch


quote:

ORIGINAL: Apocalypso

quote:

ORIGINAL: SimplyMichael
Clearly you haven't been reading the thread the rest of us have been in.  You couldn't PAY me to date a model, even one with a decent personality.
While I agree with you that not all of us like the model type (the supermodel look doesn't do anything for me) and accept that you don't want someone who spends a long time maintaining their looks, surely physical attraction plays some part in who you're attracted to, along with personality?


Not really. I've heard tell His last long term partner was very plain.




Yep, she was very very plain.  Something about her though just seemed to captivate and intoxicate me.  So yeah, she was quite plain , plainly the hottest, plainly the darker and more kinky one, and plainly the one that set the standard by which I judge women. 




BossyShoeBitch -> RE: Looks and weight (6/27/2009 9:29:37 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: SimplyMichael

quote:

ORIGINAL: BossyShoeBitch


quote:

ORIGINAL: Apocalypso

quote:

ORIGINAL: SimplyMichael
Clearly you haven't been reading the thread the rest of us have been in.  You couldn't PAY me to date a model, even one with a decent personality.
While I agree with you that not all of us like the model type (the supermodel look doesn't do anything for me) and accept that you don't want someone who spends a long time maintaining their looks, surely physical attraction plays some part in who you're attracted to, along with personality?


Not really. I've heard tell His last long term partner was very plain.




Yep, she was very very plain.  Something about her though just seemed to captivate and intoxicate me.  So yeah, she was quite plain , plainly the hottest, plainly the darker and more kinky one, and plainly the one that set the standard by which I judge women. 



Somehow "right back atcha" seems like not enough words to respond to that lovely post, but it seems to fit.

and thank you.[sm=kiss.gif]




SimplyMichael -> RE: Looks and weight (6/27/2009 9:48:36 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: BossyShoeBitch



Somehow "right back atcha" seems like not enough words to respond to that lovely post, but it seems to fit.

and thank you.[sm=kiss.gif]


Sometimes you say the sweetest things!




Ialdabaoth -> RE: Looks and weight (6/27/2009 4:15:07 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Firebirdseeking

Good luck finding a relationship.  I'd say you ARE holding auditions.


That's a fair cop, and to be honest, I think I prefer long-term "professional" style relationships to "romantic" ones, anyways. I'd almost rather be the BDSM equivalent of an agent, manager or olympic coach. Not a very common arrangement, admittedly, but I'd rather be up-front about it than try and mold my desires into something I'm more likely to find, only to frustrate <i>both</i> of us because my actual needs aren't being fulfilled.

A bit of up-front honesty can save <i>months</i> of couple's therapy down the line. :)




Firebirdseeking -> RE: Looks and weight (6/27/2009 5:29:46 PM)

80% of couples who present for counseling wind up "divorcing".  FYI, interesting factoid. 





Ialdabaoth -> RE: Looks and weight (6/27/2009 7:44:11 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Firebirdseeking

80% of couples who present for counseling wind up "divorcing".  FYI, interesting factoid. 




This is true, too. ;) Maybe more people should give up the idea of "romantic" relationships and just work on mutually beneficial, limited-duration and limited-scope partnerships. :)




SimplyMichael -> RE: Looks and weight (6/27/2009 9:01:14 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Ialdabaoth


quote:

ORIGINAL: Firebirdseeking

80% of couples who present for counseling wind up "divorcing".  FYI, interesting factoid. 




This is true, too. ;) Maybe more people should give up the idea of "romantic" relationships and just work on mutually beneficial, limited-duration and limited-scope partnerships. :)


Or perhaps they should pull their heads out of their asses, assess whatever issues are holding them back, develop better relationship skills and perhaps find actual long term happiness?





Ialdabaoth -> RE: Looks and weight (6/27/2009 9:09:32 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: SimplyMichael

quote:

ORIGINAL: Ialdabaoth

This is true, too. ;) Maybe more people should give up the idea of "romantic" relationships and just work on mutually beneficial, limited-duration and limited-scope partnerships. :)


Or perhaps they should pull their heads out of their asses, assess whatever issues are holding them back, develop better relationship skills and perhaps find actual long term happiness?


There's several issues conflating to prevent that.

One, most people act as if they like their head up their ass - primarily because pulling it out requires admitting that they stuck it up there in the first place.

Two, relationship craziness is often a prisoner's dilemma. If one side is sane and the other side is crazy, things go horribly wrong for the sane person and slightly bad for the crazy person. But they never go bad enough that the crazy person pulls their head out of their ass - often, anything capable of disrupting their crazy is capable of pretty much knocking them out of the game altogether.

Three, not all people are created equal. Plenty of people just don't have it in them to develop those better relationship skills, any more than every single one of us could learn nuclear physics and go discover the Higgs boson.

Four, there's a perpetuated "cycle of abuse", where people who genuinely want to mature and become more healthy are repeatedly subjected to trauma from crazies, which disrupts their efforts and knocks them back into crazy. Worse, often people who are all attempting to be sane mutually annihilate due to the last little bits of crazy they're working on, amplifying everyone's crazy until we're right back where we started. As this process becomes more and more painful, a good subset of the population makes the completely justifiable decision that it's not worth the effort and not likely to pay off, trying to be sane, and fall back to the "I like my head up my ass" stance mentioned in point one.

Look at it this way: Tag football can be a perfectly fun game, but if the playground culture has evolved into a toxic mess where people are getting hurt, maybe it's better to switch to checkers for a little bit?

That like a teenager saying "this whole maturing process is hard, I am going to stay a kid" and expecting adults not to laugh at him.






HatesParisHilton -> RE: Looks and weight (6/28/2009 2:36:15 AM)

I'll ask a potentially pretentious question:
\
has anyone bitching about how looks play into things taking the time to look into the word/term "memes" or "memetics"?

Odds are you look the way you do BECAUSE of them.




Toppingfrmbottom -> RE: Looks and weight (6/28/2009 10:32:04 AM)

I don't necessarily need a body builder or want one, I think some of those people go to far and they're grotesque, actually.
quote:

ORIGINAL: Ialdabaoth



Way too skinny for most people's tastes, to be honest. Of course, I pack in as many calories in a day as I can, gorge myself, exercise like a mad rabbit... and I'm still 5'9" and 105 lbs.

Girls all want the weightlifter; guys all want the supermodel.




Ialdabaoth -> RE: Looks and weight (6/28/2009 11:55:12 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Toppingfrmbottom

I don't necessarily need a body builder or want one, I think some of those people go to far and they're grotesque, actually.


Of course they do. It's all a bell curve.




Loxosceles -> RE: Looks and weight (6/28/2009 1:39:23 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: MARAA
Hello, i would like to ask you about weight and looks. How important is looks and weight for you?
What are you looking after,if any particular?
"The stereotype" girl with long hair, small or not so big body and angelface how important is that?
How many of you would accept larger women? or opposite?
How much do you also look for the inside?
Thank you


I have two sets of criteria: one for a sub, one for a slave.  However, size is not an issue because size is controlled by letting them eat.  They eat more, they are bigger.  Feed them less, they are smaller.  Works every time.
 
I prefer a slave to be plain looking to almost ugly because it is easier for me to objectify them when their face looks like the south end of a northbound horse. 
 
A sub is more of the angel faced stereotype you describe.
 
 




Apocalypso -> RE: Looks and weight (6/28/2009 1:57:15 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Ialdabaoth
Of course they do. It's all a bell curve.
I'd agree with your basic premise that physical attraction is very important, but I think you're underplaying some of the nuances involved.

Firstly, you have to recognise that society heavily shapes perceptions of the 'ideal body'.  For an easy example of that, compare the Greco-Roman version of the 'ideal woman' to the one promoted today.

Secondly, i think that you're underestimating the role personal preferences play in this.  For myself, there's entirely physical reasons I wouldn't go for the 'supermodel' type (too tall, breasts not big enough).

And I think that's the same for everyone.  I suspect the vast majority of people have a 'type', but you're coming too close to arguing that type is generic for me.

Obviously, that doesn't mean those who's 'type' is a deviation from the norm are any less shallow or superfical than those who have more mainstream tastes.  Again speaking from personal experience, it's the case that the vast majority of the women I've been involved with have been 'alternative' in apperance (goths, hippychicks, punks etc.)  While that might not fit more conventional notions of beauty, it's quite obvious that I do still have as many factors coming into play as anyone else looking at a potential partner.




penitentialarts -> RE: Looks and weight (6/28/2009 5:17:47 PM)

In general, I'm less interested in looks than I am in personality, attitude, and enthusiasm.

Height, hair color, ethnicity, and skin color don't matter at all to me.

That isn't to say that I don't have preferences, or that I am attracted to everyone I see.  The right personality will make a person seem more attractive to me, though.

- Jesse




Ialdabaoth -> RE: Looks and weight (6/28/2009 6:21:34 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Apocalypso

quote:

ORIGINAL: Ialdabaoth
Of course they do. It's all a bell curve.
I'd agree with your basic premise that physical attraction is very important, but I think you're underplaying some of the nuances involved.

Firstly, you have to recognise that society heavily shapes perceptions of the 'ideal body'.  For an easy example of that, compare the Greco-Roman version of the 'ideal woman' to the one promoted today.

Secondly, i think that you're underestimating the role personal preferences play in this.  For myself, there's entirely physical reasons I wouldn't go for the 'supermodel' type (too tall, breasts not big enough).


Well, yes. :) And obviously, words like "supermodel" and "bodybuilder" are overgeneralizations. But again, it's a bell-curve.

I'd say a good 80% of the male population's preferences cluster around a group of around 20% of the female population. Likewise, I'd say that a good 80% of the female population's preferences cluster around a group of around 20% of the male population. What "good looking" means is informed quite drastically by social conventions, but we're all pretty congruent in our adoptions of those conventions.

Does that mean a 300 lb girl or a 5'2" guy can't get a date? Of course not, but it certainly means he'll have to try harder, and will generally need some other attributes to compensate. The alternative, of course, is to look for potential mates on the outside of the bell-curve - certain people do certainly have "non-standard" preferences when it comes to body types. The thing is, doing so limits the dating pool quite a bit, which lowers the likelihood of finding someone with other desired qualities.

Look at it this way.

Person X can get what they want by trying hard, perservering, and never giving up. They'll look and look and eventually, they'll find it.
Person Y can get what they want by being a wonderful person and having an amazing personality.
Person Z gets what they want, period. They don't have to try hard, and they don't have to be a winner. They just have to be pretty.

Of course persons X and Y are going to notice that person Z gets a free ride, and be somewhat resentful of it. And then they try to compensate by saying "but look at me! I tried hard and I got it!" or "but looks aren't as important as personality!"

Guess what, though? If you have looks, you don't need personality. You don't need effort. Hell, if you have looks you generally don't need much of anything else. And I'm not just talking about dating; people who fit their society's image of "good looking" are, on the whole, also seen as more trustworthy, more honest, more hard-working, more deserving of reward - in general, more morally good than people who deviate from that image. Yes, it's absolutely true that "good looking" can mean different things for some people, and it's absolutely true that if you aren't "good looking", you can still get by "just as well" with a bit of extra effort. But if you are "good looking", in a conventional sense, you don't need that extra effort - because 80% of the people you meet will fall over backwards to help you out, without even realizing they're doing so.

And please remember, we're a pretty self-selected bunch of freaks. Most of the local groups I've interacted with have very shallow bell-curves when it comes to appearance. A lot of that is because many of the the "pretty" people self-select -- they would love to go to BDSM events, but they don't feel like a crowd full of "social rejects" is really their "scene". (and yes, there are exceptions to this. We're talking about trends here, not hard-and-fast 100% "rules".) Think of it like racism - not everyone has to be racist for racism to be a problem. If enough people are racist, even if it's a minority, it'll still have a big enough impact to cause problems. "Lookism" works the same way, and is probably ingrained even deeper into our subconscious.

You can learn to exploit it or try to fight it, but trying to pretend that it doesn't work that way is... ah... well, naïve.
W




WyldHrt -> RE: Looks and weight (6/29/2009 12:02:08 AM)

quote:

Well, yes. :) And obviously, words like "supermodel" and "bodybuilder" are overgeneralizations. But again, it's a bell-curve.

I'd say a good 80% of the male population's preferences cluster around a group of around 20% of the female population. Likewise, I'd say that a good 80% of the female population's preferences cluster around a group of around 20% of the male population. What "good looking" means is informed quite drastically by social conventions, but we're all pretty congruent in our adoptions of those conventions.

Does that mean a 300 lb girl or a 5'2" guy can't get a date? Of course not, but it certainly means he'll have to try harder, and will generally need some other attributes to compensate. The alternative, of course, is to look for potential mates on the outside of the bell-curve - certain people do certainly have "non-standard" preferences when it comes to body types. The thing is, doing so limits the dating pool quite a bit, which lowers the likelihood of finding someone with other desired qualities.

Look at it this way.

Person X can get what they want by trying hard, perservering, and never giving up. They'll look and look and eventually, they'll find it.
Person Y can get what they want by being a wonderful person and having an amazing personality.
Person Z gets what they want, period. They don't have to try hard, and they don't have to be a winner. They just have to be pretty.

Of course persons X and Y are going to notice that person Z gets a free ride, and be somewhat resentful of it. And then they try to compensate by saying "but look at me! I tried hard and I got it!" or "but looks aren't as important as personality!"

Guess what, though? If you have looks, you don't need personality. You don't need effort. Hell, if you have looks you generally don't need much of anything else. And I'm not just talking about dating; people who fit their society's image of "good looking" are, on the whole, also seen as more trustworthy, more honest, more hard-working, more deserving of reward - in general, more morally good than people who deviate from that image. Yes, it's absolutely true that "good looking" can mean different things for some people, and it's absolutely true that if you aren't "good looking", you can still get by "just as well" with a bit of extra effort. But if you are "good looking", in a conventional sense, you don't need that extra effort - because 80% of the people you meet will fall over backwards to help you out, without even realizing they're doing so.

And please remember, we're a pretty self-selected bunch of freaks. Most of the local groups I've interacted with have very shallow bell-curves when it comes to appearance. A lot of that is because many of the the "pretty" people self-select -- they would love to go to BDSM events, but they don't feel like a crowd full of "social rejects" is really their "scene". (and yes, there are exceptions to this. We're talking about trends here, not hard-and-fast 100% "rules".) Think of it like racism - not everyone has to be racist for racism to be a problem. If enough people are racist, even if it's a minority, it'll still have a big enough impact to cause problems. "Lookism" works the same way, and is probably ingrained even deeper into our subconscious.

You can learn to exploit it or try to fight it, but trying to pretend that it doesn't work that way is... ah... well, naïve.

And all that means or changes.... what, exactly? Sorry, but obsessing over statistics, some bell curve, the perceived advantage of the so-called "good looking", and such just seems to be a complete waste of time. If someone isn't "into me" because of my looks, age, or weight; cool. I move on. Everyone has preferences, and I have no interest in being with someone who isn't both physically and mentally attracted to me.

As for "If you have looks, you don't need personality... yadda yadda". Horseshit. Some few DO get by on looks alone, but they are few and far between. Ask most of the "good looking" kids who flock to LA hoping to make it big about that one... you'll find most of them waiting tables and parking cars.




DemonKia -> RE: Looks and weight (6/29/2009 7:38:33 AM)

LOL

Excellent point, Wyld . . . . .

We have a thriving & relatively large local-theater scene in this small city, & I've watched several times as local 'pretty' actors went off to the big city (NY, LA) with a swagger & came back humbled by the reality that those are very competitive places for the pretty . . .. . & having lived in LA in my youth, I understand. Pretty people are a dime a dozen in NY & LA, they disproportionately draw from the 'pretty pool' . . . . . & it seems like it's one of those 'big fish, small pond; small fish, big pond' kinda things, too . .. ..

quote:

ORIGINAL: WyldHrt

...

As for "If you have looks, you don't need personality... yadda yadda". Horseshit. Some few DO get by on looks alone, but they are few and far between. Ask most of the "good looking" kids who flock to LA hoping to make it big about that one... you'll find most of them waiting tables and parking cars.





Ialdabaoth -> RE: Looks and weight (6/29/2009 11:01:55 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: DemonKia

LOL

Excellent point, Wyld . . . . .

We have a thriving & relatively large local-theater scene in this small city, & I've watched several times as local 'pretty' actors went off to the big city (NY, LA) with a swagger & came back humbled by the reality that those are very competitive places for the pretty . . .. . & having lived in LA in my youth, I understand. Pretty people are a dime a dozen in NY & LA, they disproportionately draw from the 'pretty pool' . . . . . & it seems like it's one of those 'big fish, small pond; small fish, big pond' kinda things, too . .. ..


Exactly! Like I keep saying, it's a bell curve. When you're at the high end of the bell-curve, things are easier. But then you try to compete in an environment made up of people at the high end of the global bell-curve, and suddenly it's a whole new game - they're all in their own bell-curve now, and separate out into a new 80/20 spread.




Andalusite -> RE: Looks and weight (6/30/2009 8:16:55 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Ialdabaoth


quote:

ORIGINAL: SimplyMichael

quote:

ORIGINAL: Ialdabaoth

This is true, too. ;) Maybe more people should give up the idea of "romantic" relationships and just work on mutually beneficial, limited-duration and limited-scope partnerships. :)


Or perhaps they should pull their heads out of their asses, assess whatever issues are holding them back, develop better relationship skills and perhaps find actual long term happiness?


There's several issues conflating to prevent that.

One, most people act as if they like their head up their ass - primarily because pulling it out requires admitting that they stuck it up there in the first place.

Two, relationship craziness is often a prisoner's dilemma. If one side is sane and the other side is crazy, things go horribly wrong for the sane person and slightly bad for the crazy person.

Three, not all people are created equal. Plenty of people just don't have it in them to develop those better relationship skills, any more than every single one of us could learn nuclear physics and go discover the Higgs boson.

Four, there's a perpetuated "cycle of abuse", where people who genuinely want to mature and become more healthy are repeatedly subjected to trauma from crazies, which disrupts their efforts and knocks them back into crazy.
Look at it this way: Tag football can be a perfectly fun game, but if the playground culture has evolved into a toxic mess where people are getting hurt, maybe it's better to switch to checkers for a little bit?


Huh? I try to avoid dating anyone who's crazy, and if they can't develop better relationship skills, I don't want to be the one to try to knock it through their heads. I've made two bad choices in partners, but got out once they made it clear that we weren't compatible. The rest of the guys I've dated have been wonderful, honorable men, even though things eventually didn't work out romantically.

I don't see how the "limited time, limited scope, mutually beneficial partnerships" would reduce craziness or improve relationship skills. I've been in a couple of playpartnerships, which I suppose could loosely fall under that category, but I can't see any point in having sex with someone who has no more interest in being my boyfriend than my gay friends do. A playpartnership doesn't meet my sexual or romantic or relationship-type needs, though they're useful for learning new BDSM skills and enjoying time with friends.




Page: <<   < prev  4 5 6 [7] 8   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Collarchat.com © 2025
Terms of Service Privacy Policy Spam Policy
0.046875