in practice you will be most physically attracted
to those regarded to be of a similar level of attractiveness to your own

nature sets things up this way

draw your own conclusion

men are a different kettle of fish. women will tolerate scars and a broken nose because it suggest the ability to fend off attackers and hunt well enough to provide. nature wants males to be tough and strong. this shapes female ideals of physical attraction. intelligence is also often more of a factor as males are traditionally 'problem solvers' no flaming please i am talking anthropologically

and BTW i earn my living as an artist :p
( spimf ™ is whoever you want him to be, Wed 21 Oct 2009, 13:57, 3 replies)

Probably..........but I don't have a big nose : )

( girlinthehole, Wed 21 Oct 2009, 13:59, closed)

Ok,
can I take it back about Jo Brand or have I made my bed?
( Blind Meach Cautiously optimistic, Wed 21 Oct 2009, 14:02, closed)

fraid so
inexcusable
( spimf ™ is whoever you want him to be, Wed 21 Oct 2009, 14:03, closed)

that
is a bit depressing to think of. Surely everyone tries for the person they think is most attractive?
( Amberl was stripey and dominated Europe, Wed 21 Oct 2009, 14:06, closed)

Attractive
does not necessarily equate to beautiful though.
( K2k6 has a proper job these days, Wed 21 Oct 2009, 14:15, closed)

good point
but if spimf is right and beauty is the basis for most feelings of sexual attraction (which would only make sense) it doesn't then make sense that people aim for a proportionately attractive to themselves partner
( Amberl was stripey and dominated Europe, Wed 21 Oct 2009, 14:29, closed)

you would think so but this does not happen in practice
couples where the 'looks' factor is 'imbalanced' are statistically remarkable. to even casual observers they look unusual - 'they're an odd looking couple' 'you wouldn't imagine him as her boyfriend' there are a number of factors mitigating in this:

anxiety - is he/she 'too goodlooking for me?' 'will i be able to hold on to them?' (This is why confidence is rated as a particularly desirable characteristic in males, women worry more about the practicalities of life so they put priority on partners with the self confidence to succeed.) One of the most common causes for divorce is when one partners physical looks remains essentially as they were but the other changes significantly ie weight gain, most women will tolerate baldness but their husband turning into a huge lard bucket will be a problem, 'uneven' degrees of aging etc, marrying a sex kitten who overnight becomes a cat will be a problem for many men (we're shallow). couples who evolve together tend to stay together

this is where compensatory attributes enter "he's very bright and has his own company". "hes a goodprovider". "she's warm and caring" "shes a good mother to my children" these may seem sexist but society often skews our attitude to our basic human requirements.

All of this is aside from the more complex aspects of attraction to personality which takes longer to work out and ultimately boils down to simply whether we like them or not. It is this process that can allow even the most careful bloke to be reeled in by a right munter ;)

all these complexities aside - the norm is to have a partner that the majority of outside observers would regard as having roughly similar levels of physical attraction. it is a simple law of human nature.

im no greek god but then i am Spimf - so naturally i am married to a supermodel - so long as she keeps her looks that is.
( spimf ™ is whoever you want him to be, Wed 21 Oct 2009, 16:11, closed)

There's a big difference between fantasy and reality
Which your original point was, I think, refering more to fantasy, rather than the rather drab real world we live in. It's easy to class a pretty girl a munter because you know you wouldn't have a chance, and it looks big and clever. It's another thing to be in the real world interacting with ladies you might have a chance with.
Mick Jagger; "If you can't be with the one you love, love the one you're with"
( Blind Meach Cautiously optimistic, Wed 21 Oct 2009, 16:41, closed)

I thought my original point was clear
dont suggest someone who is clearly beautiful (at least in the physical sense) is ugly simply because you dont like them, their work, their politics or even their personality.

i'ts daft and is more than slightly tinged with 'bitter'

the fantasy reality aspect is irrelevant. ive worked with models who couldnt be more down to earth and approachable - others who were miserable shallow bitches prowling around after footballers - both stunningly beautiful. Ive had a Miss World runner up fold her exceptionally long legs into my car* then laugh and joke with me like a plumber.

*sadly not a honda civic but a honda s2000
( spimf ™ is whoever you want him to be, Wed 21 Oct 2009, 16:53, closed)

Ah,
ok, I'm only trying to say beauty is not the same as being attracted to. I actually agree with you on that point, people do exactly that. That's the hypocrasy showing through them.
It's probably that I am so stunningly handsome no-one will ever live up to my expectations.

I remain suitably chastised though. Choosy rather than bitter I would say.

The fantasy/reality thing, which out of the two examples in the edit did you actually find yourself attracted to? Not just an I would moment?
( Blind Meach Cautiously optimistic, Wed 21 Oct 2009, 17:13, closed)

definitely the s2000
i've had 4 identical to this
( spimf ™ is whoever you want him to be, Wed 21 Oct 2009, 17:18, closed)

Superb!
Priorities all present and correct I see.
( Blind Meach Cautiously optimistic, Wed 21 Oct 2009, 17:23, closed)