Looks, Intellect, moral character, interests, personality?

Post Reply New Topic

I was curious to get some input as to what is most important to men when it comes to what is important to them in a relationship with a woman. I have in the past been approached by NT men who were clearly interested because they liked my outer appearance but then things inevitably fizzled out. I have a friend with AS who claims that looks don't matter at all to him, but I don't think that's really true. How would you rank the following in order of importance; looks, intellect, moral character, interests, personality. I have a male friend with AS who claims that he doesn't notice how women look but then I find out that he's looking at pornography on-line so that can't be true. I just cannot believe that any man could truthfully say that he doesn't notice how a woman looks.

If I were to rank them...

From most to least important.

1: personality
2: moral character
3: intellect
4: interests
5: looks

Looks are honestly the last thing I am looking for... really. Which isn't to say I don't like looks, but the beauty someone has is more an indication of these other qualities than a "classical" beauty.

That being said, I know my list is not quite standard among guys.

Ranking the average guy...

1: personality
2: looks
3: interests
4: intellect
5: moral character

Perhaps with personality/looks flipping... it's a sliding scale for guys. The more attractive you are... the less they care about your personality. On the other side of things... a great personality will lead guys to care slightly less about looks (it's still insanely important though).

Also, intellect/moral character really depends on the guy. I really doubt most even think about this sort of thing.

Of course men, and women, look at the apperarance of potential partners. Everyone does.
It is the first thing that you are aware of about someone and it tells you a lot about them - how wealthy they are, how the percieve themselves et cetera. It's not the be-all-and-end-all though.
Every girl I've been out with was a friend first and in some cases I wasn't much attracted to them at first, but on getting to know them I found them very attractive.

I'm not too fussed on looks. I like some things don't like others but when it comes right down to it I'd rather be with someone who I can relate to, I find intelligent so that we can discuss matters, is independent so that they can challenge my view, I genuinely like to spend time in their company.
If you built a relationship on looks alone then it won't go anywhere and eventually will collapse.
That said you really can't build a ralationship with someone you find physically repulsive.

Of course there are many, many men (and women)who build their short term relationships on looks alone. These people are stupid.

I don't think that I CAN rank these.
I insist upon a fairly narrow range on
all. Though, I have been loosening up
a bit on "moral character" recently -
more willing to admit that people's
unreasonable limitations might be
changeable.

I would say... hummm... I think it's all in how the total package connects but here's a preliminary of sorts:

1) Looks- for one you're never initially *interested* if they haven't caught your eye to begin with.
2) Intellect- I don't care whether she's college-educated or not, as long as she's really smart in ways that I find engaging and/or interesting.
3) Personality- Psychotics and/or AS girls no longer hold that old allure for me (though the AS girls are fun as hell!).
4) Interests- I don't expect anyone to have the exact same interests as me, that would be asking too much, but sharing some is of course great for emotiona bonding beyond romance.
5) Moral character- What are morals? I once dated a girl briefly in highschool who was a brilliant artist, and one of our first dates consisted of walking around Sarasota late at night and her doing graffitti everywhere. It did scare me and amaze me simultaneously.

Sounds like the kind of morals I'd favor.
But, I'm not entirely convinced that one
can't save the straight laced.

Yeah, she was a true hottie all around. I forget her last name, haven't a clue what became of her. The straighlaced can be saved, but it depends upon how. I think Lord Byron gives a good example of how to make them enjoy life! Haha, but, oddly enough it often starts with encouraging them (mostly women in my experience, but I've advised men as well) to let their inner fantasies have a voice in the external world. In one case, that of my old roommate's ex-girlfriend, it all started with him convincing her that she'd always really wanted and needed anal sex and S&M... It just got weirder from there but was exciting to see. It fell apart in the end of course. Now he's married since last year to this really cool Hawaiian girl. He came down this weekend and it was the first time in 2 years (since he got his B.A.) that I'd seen him. He'd been living the surf life in HA that whole time since he graduated. Now he's working on a B.S. in physics in North Florida. It was a fun damn weekend

As a female,I know that it is not "just guys" who are influenced by appearances.I was physically attracted to everyone I ever dated and the one exception proved the rule in that I was never as "commited" to the person who was "not my type".One of the differences,I have seen is, that what I find attractive is not "super model males" who often appear clonish and dull to me,but people who have some kind of "uniqueness" that makes them stand out to me.I have a personal preference for "dark ethnic looks" and large noses,often...native american,south american,middle eastern,particularly Greek,Jewish,Italian.I am much less attracted to European, but always find people in these areas(since there is very little ethnicly pure, as much as lots of "genetic muts".)There is also an element of "attraction" that has to do with smell,tone of voice,mannerisms....that strike a cord with me.

I am far from being a "beauty" but have always found bf who did not seem to care or found me attractive(or were good liars).I dont think females give them credit for being less concerned with "perfection" then the media would like us o believe.They do seem to allow women who are better looking "get away" with being more superficial,materialistic,stupid....but they are far less concerned with if we have some cellulite,a little more weight then Paris Hilton or are less the perfect.I think women judge ourselves and other women,much more harshly then the guys I have known.And I have myself been overwhelmingly attracted by guys that others said looked like "rats",were balding or over weight,even though the guys were self conciouse about all those things.Sometimes someones innate "charm",wit,compassion can make a "feature" very attractive just "because" it is possessed by that person and everything that is "them" becomes a symbol of "sexy".Does that make sense?

Sounds like "The Story of O".
My wife was convinced that she
was effectively living that. Ah,
never to quite the extreme (I'm
not the type to 'loan' someone out to
another man), but she certainly ended
up trying to do things (succeeding in
most of them) in order to show (and
fully experience) her love for me.
But, then time took it's toll, and we
grew too settled. The need to please
one another in all ways faded into
mere habits, and we were doomed.

1) Looks
2) Personality
3) Moral character
4) intellect & interests come a distant 4th

Everyone seems to be putting looks at the top of the pile so I suppose it deserves some explanation from my point of view. I've always regarded stunningly beautiful women as trouble on two legs but a pretty face with a smile can go an awful long way. I always try to look in their eyes, my girlfriend has a twinkle in the eye that just won't quit.

Ed Almos

from most important to least inportant

1)personality
2)moral character
3)intellect
4)interests
5) a very distant last for looks (the only exception looks mean something to me is if i cant stand to look at the person)
i have to get to know someone before i can have feelings for them hence physical traights mean little to me and only people with good personalitys can i really have feelings for

If I had to rank them:
Personality
Intellect
Interests
Moral Character{does not drink, smoke, whatever}
Looks

Honestly, I do want my GF to be beautiful but looks are the last thing I'm looking for.
Until now, I thought of pretty, flirtatious girls as trouble on two legs but now, I do not mind.
If a girl wants to flirt with me, I'll let her because like most Aspies, I'll have no clue what is being said.
I placed personality first because I need to around that person before feelings of friendship or love can occur.
Looks matter little here.

Moral Character
Intellect
Interests
Personality
Looks

I don't think you've ever said anything I don't like.

I know I'm not a guy and all, but I'd put mine in the same order.

I think moral characetr should be the most important, nevertheless it is very difficult to be avaliated as, specially the bad ones, will be able to hide it.

Looks are very seen, thus, people will be guided mainly by it.

Morality/sense of good is tied equally with intellect and personality/character. That's then followed by interests, and after that, looks.

I would probably confuse most girls.