How do you 'settle'?

Post Reply New Topic

I’m sorry but I think you have a very unrealistic, romantic notion of attraction.

There are concrete, biological features that make some people attractive and others not. These include but are not limited to, facial symmetry, clear complexion, large, clear eyes, a waist/hip ratio of .7 to 1 for women and a wedge shaped body for men. The characteristics generally describe someone in good health, likely to produce viable offspring and they tend to attract everyone, hetero, homo, or other. This is a definition of beauty that is hardwired into nearly every human being on the planet.

Let’s consider some real world couples: Brad Pitt and Angelina Jolie vs. Danny DeVito and Rhea Pearlman—each of these couples look as if they belong together, but there’s no way DeVito/Pearlman could consider each other as attractive as Pitt/Jolie do at a purely biological level.

Clearly, DeVito and Pearlman settled for each other! That’s not to say that Danny and Rhea don’t love each other or that they aren’t attracted to one another by some means, BUT it’s NOT on a biological level.

I’d like to know how they do it!

…because try as I might, I can’t get an erection for a woman who doesn’t have a wasp waist and child bearing hips no matter how much I enjoy her company and it’s a problem.





If you read through the thread you know I already apologized for this… I was simply trying to apply an easy to understand frame of reference…

I also understand that choosing partners based on physical traits is not a good basis for a relationship!

I know I’ve robbed myself of some potentially good relationships because of this.

I AM PAINFULLY AWARE OF THE FACT THAT I AM ABOUT TO LOSE A DEAR FRIEND AND A CHANCE AT ANOTHER RELATIONSHIP BECAUSE OF THIS!! !

Once again, my question is, how do other people settle and how can I learn to do so for myself?

PS
Sorry for yelling but your post seems to simply be an attack for something I’ve already acknowledged as a problem I’m trying to overcome.

@ Tim,

I'd like to learn to settle because I feel I've missed out on some good relationships with women I'm emotionally attracted to simply because I was not phisically attracted to them.

research has shown (I have a psych degree) that people are most likely to find attractive people who are rated the same as them (rated by others). There fore you are unusual in aiming much above youself. In relationships that are unequal in looks, it tends that they are ballanced out in equality in other ways such as with money, IQ or such like. But remember people do like different things, someone who I think is so very hot, might leave the next girl cold.

I would say that friend of yours deserves more than someone settleing for her, people find different people attractive and someone else might find her hot and she deserves that chap, if you value her friendship surely you would not want her to settle for someone who found her less than attractive.

Im sure you will find someone who you find hot, who likes you back if you are patient

I agree with the last poster, I like women who are about the same in attractiveness, or a just a little higher, than myself. While if the opportunity presented itself, it would be hard to turn down sex with a "really hot" girl, I'd much rather date the cute girl that is physically atttractive but modest, and there's a psychology aspect to it. I view myself as a decent looking guy but never going to be mistaken for a hunk. I want a woman living the same type of life...she looks good, friends would say "good job" but at the same time isn't "sexy" whatever that means. I assume that while attractive, she hasn't been spolied with the attention of a really hot girl.

What helped me, OP, get over the "really hot" women was seeing for myself what they are like. While it's unfair to stereotype anyone, most of the time, it fits in this case. The really hot women, as in the ones that everyone wanted in high school or college, or the kind that would turn even a 60 year old guy's head, are usually victims of their beauty...they know how hot they are, and use it to treat people like crap, or at the very worst, they only show themselves emotionally to those who in their opinion are qualified. To the average person, they are dismissive or in some cases downright rude. They also don't have any modesty and know that they are attractive. Even if they are insecure, it's that they don't think they're as hot as the next hot woman.

Like I said, this doesn't apply to every "10" out there, but most fit the bill and they aren't relationship material. They're also high maintenance and hard to plase. Better off finding that 6 or 7 that you think is really hot if that makes sense. I understand the idea of not being romantically attracted to a heavier woman.

Yes, I remember those same studies from sociology class. That's part of the reason for this thread. I wonder what, inside me, is broken and won't allow me to do this. If I understood intellectually, perhaps I could compensate…



I agree with this too. It seems I can attract women with beautiful minds but less than beautiful bodies, or, with work, I can win women with beautiful bodies but empty heads…
I guess the women with beautiful bodies and minds are taken by better men.

What's so maddening is that if I had a choice I'd pick the beautiful minds over the beautiful bodies but something inside won't let me.



You're right about this too; she deserves a man who can appreciate all of her qualities.

OP, I think you're missing the obvious solution - plan physical activities to share with your friend. Keep your own workout routine, so you don't have to compromise how it works for you. Just add activities specifically to share with her.

I think you're suffering from a fairly common misconception about motivation. Motivation is an emotional state, and it doesn't typically precede a change in habits. It's often "just doing it" - adopting the new behavior - that actually produces the motivation. So you may just drag yourself to the gym every day for a few weeks, but then you start to notice the changes in how you look and feel physically. You feel good about the physical changes, and that's what makes you want to keep going to the gym - that's what motivates you. So it doesn't matter if you're the one dragging your friend to the gym for a while (or if you're the one who meets her there, or establishes a workout routine that you can do together, or whatever). At some point, she will realize that she feels better, she looks better, and that will motivate her to continue the activity. It doesn't matter why she starts - whether it's for you, for her kid, for her dog, for her job.....she'll eventually continue going for herself.

So do some planning, sketch it out for her, and present it to her. If she resists (and you really like her), you can tell her (gently) that you can really only picture yourself being in a relationship with someone who is fit and is able to share the level of physical activity you enjoy. You won't have to talk about your lack of attraction for her - she'll read between the lines. When you've explained that to her and if she still doesn't want to go, then at least she won't be surprised when you don't take the relationship further. But if you think she's so great, and you think she has potential, then stop complaining about the situation and fight for her.

And finally, I'd like to offer another perspective on your issues with attraction. I don't think there's anything wrong with you. I don't think this is a question of morality, or some type of character flaw on your part. Women and men process attraction very, very differently. Women can (and often do) become attracted to men because of their character. It's happened to me several times: I meet a man I think I'd never be attracted to physically; I get to know him, and find that he's such a great guy that I'm crazy about him. Men don't function that way. Men are typically either attracted or not attracted to a woman. It's like a light switch - it's either "on" or "off" - and that doesn't change - no matter how attractive a woman's character or personality might be. There's an old saying that I believe summarizes the difference between men and women quite nicely: women learn to be attracted to the men they love; men learn to love the women they're attracted to.

Trust me, I've had men interested in me that I simply was not attracted to. There were a few in that category who did have nice personalities, too.....but I just never felt "that way" for them. While I regretted having to turn them down (which I know caused disappointment and pain), I didn't believe I was a terrible person because I wasn't attracted to them.

There are men (minority) who have a more fluid concept of attraction.....they can become attracted to a woman who doesn't initially attract them. There are women (minority) who have a more rigid concept of attraction....they'll never become attracted to a man who doesn't initially attract them. It's not a character flaw - it's just how God or nature or evolution or whatever wired them. The only character problem I see in these situations is how you handle it. For example, you've admitted to keeping the lady in question around because you like the attention she gives you. That sucks, bro cause it means you're stringing her along when you know there's no possibility of a relationship (as long as she remains in her current physical condition). So don't be that guy. Either care enough about her to make the effort to get her headed in the right direction, or let her go.

I disagree. Men simply aren't such simplistic beings, when it comes to attraction, as you presumably believe them to be. While I won't deny that there exists an "on-or-off" component of male-to-female attraction, one must realize that this component seems to be due only to the "biological" part of male nature, whereas in reality men are products of their cultural environments as much as of their genes. A lot of what men commonly find attractive is culturally determined and conditioned, and it's the conditioned part which can, to a certain extent, be modified by conscious effort. Example: being an Asian raised in an almost exclusively white environment, with white adoptive parents, I found neither African nor Asian women very attractive. When I went to college, however, I met lots of non-white women, and I slowly learned to appreciate their beauty and attractiveness. Racial criteria no longer play a large part in my erotic tastes anymore. The same applies to women with small breasts. Like many men I used to suffer from BBS (Big Boob Syndrome) during puberty, but having watched many beautiful women with small breasts in erotic magazines as well as in "regular" art, I seem to be cured now. I have also grown considerably more tolerant of women with "a few pounds more" in the past few years.

My advice to men with too rigid standards is: try to look at erotic magazines which carry pictures of amateur models (not under-age models of course). Such models often are less "perfect" w.r.t. the present ideal of female beauty than professional models, but, to my mind, all the more human. Some things are just a matter of acquired taste.

You make a good point dddhgg, but I don't think it's really a counter-point to what I've said. I agree that attraction can be influenced by exposure to a greater variety of women (as your own case has demonstrated). But again, your example is based on visual stimulation. My point however, is that exposure to a woman's character won't typically influence a man's level of attraction to her. Typically, if a man is not visually stimulated by a woman, her character is not going to change that.

You're probably correct in saying that men are primarily visual creatures. That's just the way they're wired biologically. It's more that I didn't think your light switch metaphor very convincing. Men don't think in binary code, you know. Neither do their preferences remain the same over a sufficiently long period of time, for the reasons listed above. Finally, I have my doubts concerning your very positive conviction that a woman's character doesn't have any influence whatsoever in a man's appreciation of her physical appearance. I suspect the "fluid" men mentioned in your argument are actually a very sizable proportion of the male population. But perhaps I'm biased by my own experiences.

I don't think a woman's character has no impact on a man's attraction, dddhgg. In fact, I think a woman's character can cool a man's attraction significantly. For example, a woman who's mean, rude, an airhead, superficial, dishonest, etc., can definitely make a man walk away from a woman he finds attractive. However, unless a man's concept of attraction is fairly malleable (again, the minority of men), a woman's character is typically not enough to make a woman sexually attractive to a man. I just don't think that indicates a moral or character failing on the man's part...it is what it is.

I don't know if it's an Aspie thing with me, but looks definitely matter. Not just with people, but with anything. I've really noticed it with dogs. Growing up, my family has always been bleeding heart for animals . I can't count the number of stray dogs and cats we adopted or found homes for. One thing I noticed about myself is that looks was a huge deal. If there were two dogs, and one was calm, great personality, loved to play, friendly, etc but I didn't like the look of it (maybe a poodle type dog), compared to a dog that was loud, barked a lot, was a little more trouble, but I really liked what it looked like (a husky or something), I'd rather keep the husky.

I feel bed about to because it's not the way I want to be, but I can't help it. If I don't find someone attractive, I will never be able to love them. That doesn't mean they have to be a supermodel, I've been attracted to many women that weren't supermodel.

My inference is hardly based on romance. The research you're referencing shows a tendency, not a law. Every research paper and discussion I've perused hasn't seemed to conclude that the 'golden ratio' and other factors as a absolute, just a simple guideline. As with anything in nature, there are variables and curveballs. There are plenty of people out there who aren't even physically attracted to humans at all, and with no apparent cause for their deviant sexualities. Some people literally seem wired to like certain things that go against the norm, and they're not such a small percentage that it's negligible.

I, for one, can't always understand why my friends are attracted to the people they are because I just don't share their tastes, physically or emotionally, in quite a few cases. But for us, it does seem to be based on the package deal (no pun intended), and I don't dig the personalities they do. Some of them like what you've described, while a lot of others like pudgy, portly, hairy, misshapen, asymmetrical, scarred, and even downright alien, and a huge part of it is based on personality and the way it shapes their perceptions of the physical.

I will give you my personal example. I find my boyfriend to be exceptionally attractive, by far the most attractive man I have known, yet none of my friends find him so. They tell me he looks weird, out of proportion, or things like that. He has lots of asymmetries and is probably disproportionate because his head is big and his body small. But these are the features I find really attractive, at a base level. His features have been an archetype for me since I was little, and I've always been attracted to short, weird-looking people with certain features most would find undesirable. That doesn't mean that when I look at people who fit the biological standards you outline I can't find them attractive, it means that I have my own specific, apparently hard-wired preferences. I'm also bisexual, and it applies to both genders.

Another example is my boyfriend himself (also bisexual, almost homosexual), who identifies with the furry community. He and his friend have been attracted to certain anthropomorphic and non-anthropomorphic creature art since they were toddlers, with seemingly no trigger except an internal one. I have a bit of this myself, enough that my attractions could easily cross boundaries into non-human territory (not bestial--there has to be an intelligent personality involved). If I showed you some examples, you'd see that the research is pretty much thrown right out the window, and there are hundreds of thousands of people online who identify with the same attractions. While I don't discount possible developmental factors for some, it seems to run in families without any external influence. We come pre-wired for certain things and it's just part of sexual variation. Biology is just too fluid to fit a consistent mould.



Well, after writing the above, I realized that your situation reminds me of the people I've known who have exclusive paraphilias. That's not to say yours could be classed as a paraphilia since your sexual interests are considered totally normal,, but at a glance the problems are actually very similar and maybe the same sort of psychological rules apply.

With exclusive paraphilias, becoming aroused outside of the single object of their interest proved nearly, or totally, impossible. Spokanegirl on this forum has talked quite a lot about this as she has a specific paraphilia, so you may have seen her posts about it.

To me, being stuck on any one thing in terms of general attraction is really an alien concept, so in any case I don't actually have any ideas how to create more flexibility. I know with paraphilics they find success when they incorporate the object they desire into their sex lives, and many men seem to use porn of their favourite type of women within relationships, so maybe this is one option. The obvious hitch is if you can't get aroused with your partner at all, or if she frowns on incorporating porn.

Intuitively, though, I think the most likely place to start would be cognitive behavioural self training, or maybe seeing a sex therapist to help you along the way. Conditioning a new mindset seems like a promising idea. If you can train your mind into recognizing that more than a few very specific types of women can be just as rewarding, or that the personality of someone can override or change your perspective on the physical, that would work out great. Either that, or keep looking for the type that attract you, though I'd worry if you did get into something with your non-preferred that it would eventually fade and end when she aged.

Last edited by Orbyss on 01 Jan 2010, 7:02 pm, edited 4 times in total.

Seeing as most people have the opposite problem I would say your lucky. Most people I know find it easy to find people they think are attractive, but have a very hard time finding someone who mentally stimulates them and can hold their interest over time. Looks change as people age and you will probably find yourself unhappy even in the future of you dont make an atempt to get to know someone and let who they are change your visual perception.

I couldn't have said it better myself.

I agree with Hope. Most men are visually stimulated by physical appearance, and only negative, can't live with character flaws (vanity, air-headedness, snobbiness, high-maintenance, downright rude, etc) will turn the man away. Most men will take the girl that's their "10" lookswise over a girl that isn't but has a great "character." Basically if a woman is attractive to me, and most guys, she just has to not have the aforementioned character flaws. I don't get turned on by character.

And the guys that have the "character" girlfriend that isn't good looking, a lot of them (from knowing them firsthand) go to strip clubs, masturbate more than most guys, or check out women anytime they get the chance to.

Seriously, I'm shocked at the number of people (including the OP) who find his attraction for fit women pathological. Unless your attraction really does bring your morality into question (pedophilia, beastiality....where the object of your desire cannot consent) - there's really no question of morality here. It would be nice if we all chose partners based on compatibility and character - there would probably be way fewer divorces. But the guy values fitness - in himself and in his partner. Why does that make him a bad guy?

The guy I'm currently involved with quit smoking (before we started dating). I am so happy that he quit, because he's going to be so much healthier without that habit. I worry about his heart, I worry about his circulatory system, I worry about his lungs, about cancer...you name it. But there's an element of selfishness at work too: when you compare smokers to non-smokers (with equally good levels of hygiene), a non-smoker smells better, looks better, and tastes better - on all levels. Non-smokers also have better circulatory systems....that means a non-smoker can get stronger, longer lasting erections that his smoking counterpart. So on a lot of levels, there's a huge benefit that he's quit smoking - to both of us. Should I beat myself up because I would have asked him to quit if he hadn't already? Fitness is fitness - it crosses a broad spectrum that includes weight, activity, smoking, drugs, drinking, etc. I wouldn't want psychological training to help me be attracted to a smoker - smoking is a negative, unhealthy habit that would only have a negative impact on both of us. Why should the OP get psychological training to help him be attracted to someone who is not fit? Wouldn't it make more sense to help the person he's mentally and emotionally attracted to get fit? Don't they both benefit if that happens? I guess I don't understand the opposition to a win/win solution.