can looks bear no importance in a relationship?

i think you’re missing one vital point. males and females think very differently. so if you’re a female your perfect person is likely to be a male, for whatever reason.

and i think looks can affect a relationship but don’t necessarily have to. the fact is, you wouldn’t be in a relationship with someone unless you were attracted to them in some way.

is this philosophy? who cares - i’ve still got something to say (what a surprise!!)

i think the attractiveness (in terms of the ranking thing many of us do instantly when we see someone - “he’s fit… he’s not…”) of your partner is pretty unimportant once you get into a relationship. unless you’re doing the boyfriend/girlfriend accessory thing and just using them to show off with.

but the way you feel about someone will undoubtably be affected by the way they look, in the same way that it is affected by mannerisms, voice etc… it’s just that you might love someone for being the way they are (including looks) when conventionally they are nothing special.

incidentally - apparently we are meant to be more attracted to people who look like us. so are we all narcissitic? or is it a freudian parent thing? any thoughts?

Well, there are two schools of thought on who you are attracted to. One says you’re attracted to people who look like you, which is simply a rough estimate of how many genes they share with you. This is supported by the fact that genes that might look for themselves in the population, and choose to breed with them, increase the proportion of that gene in the population and are sucessful.

The other theory is that you go for someone with some genetic diversity, in order to make sure of a healthy baby, avoiding faults of in-breeding. I read some evidence for this somewhere in relation to pheremones, and how people went for the scent of someone with an immune system unlike theirs.

Overall, in terms of humans, I think the whole debate’s a little pointless, considering there’s so many more prominent factors in determining partners (e.g. influences from society about the “ideal” man/woman). So, though it might be a factor in simple, closed tests it doesn’t really come up in the real world. An interesting test would be to see, from randomly selected couples, how alike they all looked.

Of course, finally, there’s also the freudian thing. That’s just another cultural influence to me.

…a freudian slip is when you say one thing and mean your mother…

theres a third school aswell, who say that your social status, personality, wealth, etc etc dictate who you will or will not meet. for example, i am very unlikely to meet the daughter of a millionaire and marry her, yet i am more likely to meet a friend from school/uni/work and marry her. it’s just a basic fact of society as to who you do and don’t have a chance with.

The two schools I was refering were about who you are attracted to, not which people you end up going out with. But, of course, as I said, who you find attractive isn’t all that interesting when what we’re really interested is who you hook up with.

Going back to the “are looks important” subject. I think they are, if the relationship is sexual as well as intellectual or what have you. That doesn’t mean your partner has to be good looking in any body else’s eyes, just your own. Thats why everyone should go for it when they meet someone you find irrisitably attractive (and interesting of course), but everyone else thinks mings. That way a) less competition (this is very important in my case!) and b) its probably love.

Maybe I’m talking out of my arse, I don’t think looks are that important, but attraction is. If you see what I mean.

i hear you, looks can be extremely preferential, and change within people over time, so attraction is more important.

“Love is finding someone you can bare to spend 10 minutes with!” - Snow Day
What a movie!!

I’m back

Going back to the original question. I personally don’t think that I could fall in love with a man that was ‘perfect’ for me. I’d just become really good friends and probably develop a strong bond. But not love. So Yes I think looks (as well as biology) are important in the matter of love, unless you’re bi-sexual of course in which case I’m sure it’s possible to fall in love with anyone whose perfect for you.

But as for falling in love with a female, again I’m not sure looks have nothing to do with it. I think there needs to be some basic level of physical as well as emotional attraction for it to really work. Yep that’s about it from me!


Don’t sweat the petty things and don’t pet the sweaty things.

i agree with clarice…that you probably wouldn’t be in a relationship with someone if you didn’t find them attractive.

also, adding to what archie said, i read somewhere that women tend to end up with men who remind them of their fathers in some way, which makes sense really. not that i’m like jane and shag my dad…just that your daddy protects you so why shouldn’t your partner.

does that mean if your dad doesn’t protect you, you end up with someone nothing like him?

i don’t know clarice…i’m not clever.
i think that if you lack a strong male role model then things can go a bit wrong with your relationships.

strong role model yes we all need that.

but a male role model if you are a girl? surely if men and women behave differently in relationships then it would be more important for girls to be able to learn from women as role models then men. or is it that everyone needs both male and female role models?

(do i sense a gay adoption discussion coming up?!!)

I’m pretty sure everyone needs role models, of both sexes in a broad sense. This doesn’t mean your parents have to be your role models, but simply that having people of both sexes around has got to be a good thing.

Personally I have no problems with gay-adoption, simply because the environmental upbringing in most modern cultures provides a healthy dose of role models. And I’d go further and say, if anything, single sex couples might be better parents in terms of bringing up open-minded children.

Sure, if one of the people in the aforementioned relationship was blind.

The fact of the matter is, as a matter of fact, that looks do matter, perhaps not once two people have become intimately acquainted, but certainly at first. Sure, people say “I don’t care what someone looks like, I judge purely by their personality” but if that someone finds themselves on a blind date with someone with a 666 tattooed on their forehead, they may change their mind about that. We are drawn to others by dozens of characteristics, subconsciously, including smell. I think overall, if one is involved in a deeply-rooted and sincere relationship, looks may lose thier importance, but they certainly play a role, consciously or not, on whether or not two people find themselves in such a situation to begin with.

I want to know why gay men have a bad reputation for messing around with young boys, when straight men don’t get the same hard time (excuse the pun) with young girls… and also, lesbians aren’t well known for messing with young girls. I don’t know if I’m making any sense… I just think it’s a bit unfair for gay men.

personally i would say that looks are a prerequisite, not a reason…

ie. i wouldnt go out with someone if i wasnt physically attracted to them, but i wouldnt go out with them specifically because i was physically attracted to them.

I once read that looks actually dictate who you are friends with- at least, who you would talk to in a crowded room full of strangers.
Getting public transport, it would seem that appearances are the thing by which we instinctively judge people first of all.
After that, though, I think that looks become less important.

are we talking looks or appearances?

I don’t think that it’s superficial to say that looks are important…of course they are, in fact I believe that they are crucial. A sexual relationship must be born out of sexual attraction which in itself rests upon not only looks but appearance. People are incredibely sexual, and I don’t think that it would be difficult to argue that almost all of human behaviour is governed by libido. In out post-modern world we must accept the immensely important physchological developments of the last century. I see little point in denying the subconcious or the libido and in reverting ‘back’ to some sort of innocent, pre-sexual state. What lies beneath may be ugly but nevertheless it’s there anyway (take a look at the opening scene of David Lynch’s “Blue Velvet” and you’ll understand what I’m trying to get at).

Too often people try to deny the importance of sexuality. We hear, “No the most important thing is personality.” Yeah in your friend, sure, maybe even in your soul mate but don’t try to deny what’s important when choosing a sexual partner. Of course it’s difficult to argue against this because the whole point of the subconscious is that you’re unaware of it but nevertheless it seems like a convincing argument, (admittedly not the way I’ve expressed it but hey).

It’s not :imp: to be governed by sexual desire, we all are. Self-control may be praised but denial of sexuality is ridiculous.