Dating Down

[Faye]

Think about what would happen if unattractive couples had more daughters. Their genes wouldn't be very successful. The same applies to the attractive couples who had sons: they wouldn't have bad results, but the results would not be as good as when they had daughters. It's all about relative success rates. Nature doesn't need to "know" anything,it just weeds out what doesn't work.

Do you mind if I quote this in a reply that I will start as a new thread? This has gotten complicated.

 

[Faye]

Originally Posted by TheLastMohican
Think about what would happen if unattractive couples had more daughters. Their genes wouldn't be very successful. The same applies to the attractive couples who had sons: they wouldn't have bad results, but the results would not be as good as when they had daughters. It's all about relative success rates. Nature doesn't need to "know" anything,it just weeds out what doesn't work.

Do you mind if I quote this in a reply that I will start as a new thread? This has gotten complicated.

Actually, never-mind. I thought about it, and I realized that it was impossible to get anywhere without a working definition of "attractive" in the study in question, which I haven't found. So, I looked up the author. This is the wikipedia page on him:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Satoshi_Kanazawa

In response to his study:

In 2006 he published an article in the Journal of Theoretical Biology, claiming that attractive people are 26% less likely to have male offspring.[3][4] In a letter to the editors,[5] Columbia statistician Andrew Gelman points out that a correct interpretation of the regression coefficients in Kanazawa's analysis is that attractive people are 8% more likely to have girls, an error that Kanazawa acknowledges.[6] Gelman further argues that Kanazawa's analysis does not convincingly show causality, because of possible endogeneity as well as problematic interpretations of statistical significance in multiple comparisons. While Kanazawa claims that the former error is "merely linguistic" and that he addressed the latter two in his initial article,[7] Gelman maintains that his original criticism remains valid.[8]

I knew there was something wrong with that number, and this shows it could be either a gross exaggeration or either flat-out wrong.

The guy is a bit of a nut. I'm reading this now. This is what got me:

In 2006 Kanazawa published a controversial paper suggesting that poor health of people in some nations is the result, not of poverty, but rather lower IQ

He isn't talking about nations like the United States, Western Europe, or Japan. He is talking about Sub-Saharan Africa.

The guy looks like he doesn't really understand the statistics he is using or even what science is, as he thinks he is telling the truth and needs to ignore criticisms in order to tell the truth. Since when is science about 'truth'?

Some of what he says might be right, but some of it probably isn't, especially the thing about people in Sub-Saharan Africa having lowing IQ's.


His blog is interesting, although I'm having to be extra critical.

 

[bamf]

I'm a ten so it's pretty much slim pickings up here at the top. I don't want to "settle", ya know? My parents always taught me not to settle, so I'm just waiting for that perfect ten to come waltzing my way, or else I am staying single forever.

 

[Gaze]

I'm a ten so it's pretty much slim pickings up here at the top. I don't want to "settle", ya know? My parents always taught me not to settle, so I'm just waiting for that perfect ten to come waltzing my way, or else I am staying single forever.

LOL

 

[IndigoSensor]

I really don't like admitting it because I feel like it is an uncontrolable flaw with me, but, I generally am not willing to date down. Reason being; physical attractiveness is really important to me. I must be strongly physically attracted to the person or the relationship will not work (I've tried even). However, if being strongly attracted to someone who is "down" (and I could see that being possible in a minority of cases because I have strange tastes) then that is alright.

I am not sure how I feel about the study. I look at it this way: to each their own.

 

[Gaze]

For myself, i feel uncomfortable with the idea of dating "down" as it suggests that there are people who are inferior or not good enough for me. Thing is, if i were to think of myself as someone who could date "down" then this assumes that i think i'm either quite attractive, attractive enough, or desirable by some socially agreed upon societal standards which leads me to assume that i am someone who has my pick of people in some sense. This weirds me out think this way. Personally, how someone carries themselves, personality, attitude, is more important to me when looking at a relationship than someone who is very attractive.

And i know i'm giving someone *here* amunition by saying this, but i'd be a little insecure if i was with someone who is highly attractive. I guess if they earned my trust and are loyal partners, i guess it wouldn't be fair to question their committment. But i'd probably think or wonder whether they wouldn't be better off with a more attractive partner. I'd also worry that the highly attractive partner may not treat me as well, although i've had some very attractive guy friends (just friends of course) who treated me pretty well. I've also met a few who treat you as if you're not worthy of their presence because they are that hot. *rolls eyes*

At the end of the day, i'm guessing it's how we're treated that matters more.

 

[Reon]

Personally, I don't feel the need to date someone I'm not attracted to. I can learn to become attracted to someone physically that, on first glance, I might not be physically attracted to but that generally never happens. I have the tendency to think that, if I wasn't attracted to them at first, why now? I know the "general" rubic of how to tell if someone is attractive by the majority of people, but I don't tend to use that same standard to see if I'm personally attracted to someone. I really wouldn't know if I was dating up or down, I'm kind of neutral towards my own looks personally and my ratings tend to wiggle around. Which leads to my next point.

I still think the perception of the attractiveness of a partner plays a major issue in this study, or rather, I'd like to see a study based on that. I wonder if the results would be the same if the guy thinks he's super attractive based on his own point of view, compared to his wife/girlfriend, while everyone typically sees the woman as the more attractive one. Even still. Equating caring and all those character traits, to a lack of attractiveness, seems off.

 

[DoveAlexa]

I really don't like admitting it because I feel like it is an uncontrolable flaw with me, but, I generally am not willing to date down. Reason being; physical attractiveness is really important to me. I must be strongly physically attracted to the person or the relationship will not work (I've tried even). However, if being strongly attracted to someone who is "down" (and I could see that being possible in a minority of cases because I have strange tastes) then that is alright.

I am not sure how I feel about the study. I look at it this way: to each their own.

I kind of don't understand what this even means, it seems so subjective, and its LOVE for god's sake, once that enters in before or after the outside perseptions of that partner compared to the one who's in love with them is irrelevant. Just like its been voiced with many people, you might think one member of a couple is ugly and one is gorgeous, but inside the relationship, and to other people, they often wouldn't agree. How many people say a supposed sex symbol is either boring or outright ugly? Unless the difference in the couple is rather large, in other words, most people would say there is quite a difference, how can we even quantify it?

Also, the part about more attractive men being "looser" to sum it up, it kinda does an injustice to attractive men, branding them all as people who could and would never be faithful or committed. Thats just unfair, considering all the other crap a hetro man has to battle to convince a girl to date and keep them.
It also depends on how the man veiws himself. If he is gorgeous but doens't feel so, he'd act just as if he were average or less. So this again throws off any data collected. It also seems to indicate that all average or less men have no confidence and if they land an attractive women (all other attributes non-important) that he'd be spineless and whipped. I've seen plenty of average guys flit about between girls.
Then we get into the whole attractive with hair and make-up+clothes vs fresh out of shower attractive.

I don't mean to sound enraged, it just seems overly simplified, and stereotypical from all angles.

 

[Gaze]

How many people say a supposed sex symbol is either boring or outright ugly?

This is an important point. Cuz i think we're confusing attractiveness from our perspective compared to attractiveness from a social point of view. There are stars, who i really don't think are that attractive, but everyone things you're lying. For me, it's never just the looks, it's the entire impression which makes them attractive. E.g. Brad Pitt. I won't argue that he is not attractive, but i really don't find him as attractive as everyone says he is. I think Pierce Brosnan (long before he was Bond i.e. Remington Steele, Hugh Jackman (his personality is a close second), Keanu Reeves (although many think he is boring and too emo), etc. Although all these men are considered stereotypically "hot."

 

[Gaze]

But we can't deny that there are many people will put up with a lot including abuse just to be with someone who is very attractive.

 

[Lumi Spitsbergen]

I don't know. I don't think I've ever "dated down."
If I felt like the guy was "grateful" to me just because he thought I looked better.... that would be extremely uncomfortable.
I think I might leave him for that. I have an extreme aversion to being put on any sort of pedestal. It's nice to be liked, but not for anything that isn't really me. I can only disappoint that person from there.
It's one thing to have the guy I'm with think I'm the hottest thing since the invention of the motorcycle/car/sword/expressionist movement/Insert even cooler thing guy is into (I tried to pick general subjects at first).
Hell, if he has rose-colored vision enough to think I'm the most beautiful woman on the planet - I'm not saying I'd think that was a bad thing =p

BUT it would be if this caused either one of us to feel inferior. I don't think that's healthy in any relationship

 

[Odyne]

I know some very attractive girls who would "date down" because they don't want to be the "trophy girlfriend". And surprisingly enough, the guys who are less attractive than themselves tend to actually appreciate them and care for them and not parade them around as something they have won.

 

[TheLastMohican]

I'm a ten so it's pretty much slim pickings up here at the top. I don't want to "settle", ya know? My parents always taught me not to settle, so I'm just waiting for that perfect ten to come waltzing my way, or else I am staying single forever.

Mine goes to 11.

 

[basic]

I really don't like admitting it because I feel like it is an uncontrolable flaw with me, but, I generally am not willing to date down. Reason being; physical attractiveness is really important to me. I must be strongly physically attracted to the person or the relationship will not work (I've tried even). However, if being strongly attracted to someone who is "down" (and I could see that being possible in a minority of cases because I have strange tastes) then that is alright.

I am not sure how I feel about the study. I look at it this way: to each their own.

I think the "roles" in a non-heterosexual relationship are not as defined so it's a lot harder to even compare. So much is a given when dealing with heterosexual relationships so it's easier to generalize. I think there are still a lot of unobserved factors in gay relationships which makes applying this "dating down" theory difficult to apply to them.

 

[Gaze]

So, ok. Attractiveness is somewhat relative. I can find someone extremely attractive and others may find them simply average. I may even think this person is dating down by dating me (if we were to compare our attractiveness level) but yet, others looking on may think i'm much more attractive than he is. If we're going to describe someone as "dating down", we'd first have to identify the basis for comparison. Furthermore, someone can be beautiful without being attractive, oddly enough. Just as someone can be attractive, and not be considered beautiful. Attractiveness as a concept is relative. It implies that the person evaluating someone's attractiveness has a particular value system they are using, whether it's a personal criteria or societal standard.

 

[IndigoSensor]

I think the "roles" in a non-heterosexual relationship are not as defined so it's a lot harder to even compare. So much is a given when dealing with heterosexual relationships so it's easier to generalize. I think there are still a lot of unobserved factors in gay relationships which makes applying this "dating down" theory difficult to apply to them.

This is true. In particular because this specefied women dating down.

 

[Phoenix Down]

I really don't like admitting it because I feel like it is an uncontrolable flaw with me, but, I generally am not willing to date down. Reason being; physical attractiveness is really important to me. I must be strongly physically attracted to the person or the relationship will not work (I've tried even). However, if being strongly attracted to someone who is "down" (and I could see that being possible in a minority of cases because I have strange tastes) then that is alright.

I am not sure how I feel about the study. I look at it this way: to each their own.

So... For example, lets say you're into carrot tops.
You might pick a less attractive (perhaps her eyes are a little off center) redhead over a more attractive other.

Or are we talking someone who also collects beanie babies? (beanie babies being an example) or wears witty graphic tees? (or sluts it up?)


Mayhap?

I know some very attractive girls who would "date down" because they don't want to be the "trophy girlfriend". And surprisingly enough, the guys who are less attractive than themselves tend to actually appreciate them and care for them and not parade them around as something they have won.

Obviously they aren't woman enough to handle dating at the same level or higher. If you're attractive enough, you'll always be considered to some extent "arm candy." Your less attractive SO will brag (not necesarily in the obvious way...) and will get bro points. Actually... with that logic, If your SO is more attractive, he will not get such bro points by dating you since his "bros" will think he could do better (while still envying him).

Back to being woman enough, all girls should have enough self respect to establish that they are not a trophy and will not stand for such treatment.
And if he treats you that way anyway, breakup with his sorry ass.

I'm a ten so it's pretty much slim pickings up here at the top. I don't want to "settle", ya know? My parents always taught me not to settle, so I'm just waiting for that perfect ten to come waltzing my way, or else I am staying single forever.

Yeah, it is a problem.

-You know who I think the ugliest girl in this school is? That Hermione Granger. You know what I'd give her, on a scale of one to ten? One, one being the ugliest, and ten, pretty? I would give her... an eight. Eight-point-five.. or a nine. But not, NOT above a nine-point-eight. There is always room for improvement. Not everyone can be perfect, like me. That's why I'm holding out for a ten. Because I'm worth it.

Personally I only get involved with people who I look at and feel are physically attractive to me. But they have to be on my level emotionally and intellectually

Agreed.

Funny thing I have this friend that all these girls go after (he's on a pretty boy level with Leo... we call him prince charming) thing is I'm not at all attracted to him and can't really understand why those girls that I can't help but overhear are.

I'm just not into pretty boy types... or into that specific pretty boy. Probably both.