Effect of appearance on sex life.

[Novorobo]

Spinoff from the alpha/beta thread.

Often times in many online conversations you'll catch people on the Internet speculating about someone's appearance based on their opinions; the idea being that only motive A can cause opinion B, and only appearance C can cause motive A, through some effect on your sex life and/or love life.

The above thread is a refreshing exception to this trend, in that each step of this is rejected outright. However, it seems unusual, even for this site.

Therefore, I have set a poll, so as to get NSG on the record. I have opened it up to selecting two options, so that if you believe the real answer to be between two of them you can select both.

EDIT: I get that it's a spectrum, not a set of categories, and that different people have different ideas of where someone belongs on that spectrum, but for the purposes of this poll, assume "perceiving someone to be of a similar attractiveness level to yourself" is what's implied by "dating (or having casual sex with) someone of a similar attractiveness level."

[United Russian Soviet States]

People tend to partner with people they find attractive based on appearance.

[Threlizdun]

Where is the "believing attractiveness is objective and that everyone has the same sexual patterns is stupid" option?

[Southern Canton and Hong Kong]

People tend to partner with people they find attractive based on appearance.

Basically this.

But there are a few people that would have sex with someone because of their personality, or someone that is more interested in their partner's occupation or age more than looks to have sex.

[Edgy Opinions]

Where is the "believing attractiveness is objective and that everyone has the same sexual patterns is stupid" option?

"People can date or have sex with those of any level of attractiveness." and the last option were what I picked, but this.

[Novorobo]

Where is the "believing attractiveness is objective and that everyone has the same sexual patterns is stupid" option?

For the purposes of this poll, assume "perceiving someone to be of a similar attractiveness level to yourself" is what's implied by "dating or casual sex with someone of a similar attractiveness level."

Perhaps that could be more clearly stated in the OP, though. *Is off to edit it.*

[Edgy Opinions]

Where is the "believing attractiveness is objective and that everyone has the same sexual patterns is stupid" option?

For the purposes of this poll, assume "perceiving someone to be of a similar attractiveness level to yourself" is what's implied by "dating or casual sex with someone of a similar attractiveness level."

Perhaps that could be more clearly stated in the OP, though. *Is off to edit it.*

Hmmm now I already voted.

[Threlizdun]

Where is the "believing attractiveness is objective and that everyone has the same sexual patterns is stupid" option?

"People can date or have sex with those of any level of attractiveness." and the last option were what I picked, but this.

The topic of this thread seems to suggest that that option specifies everyone, or at least the vast majority of people, and still states that attractiveness is actually a set value rather than something that differs on a cultural and individual level.

[Novorobo]

"People can date or have sex with those of any level of attractiveness." and the last option were what I picked, but this.

The topic of this thread seems to suggest that that option specifies everyone, or at least the vast majority of people, and still states that attractiveness is actually a set value rather than something that differs on a cultural and individual level.

I'm definitely referring only to the majority, not everyone.

As for how to assess the average person's idea of who is more attractive than who else... just assume by default that whatever one finds unattractive is indicated by what supposed appearance flaws people attribute opinions they don't like to.

EDIT: In retrospect I should've made changing one's vote(s) an option too.

[Arcanda]

Despite that I would really, really wish people could just date anyone based on kindness and such, I am forced to stay objective, and thus I think it's fair to say the "beautiful" will only date the "beautiful".

I don't grasp the principle of casual sex.If that's casual, then you only look after the sensations it will provide, and that even the "ugliest" person can do.

[Novorobo]

Despite that I would really, really wish people could just date anyone based on kindness and such, I am forced to stay objective, and thus I think it's fair to say the "beautiful" will only date the "beautiful".

I don't grasp the principle of casual sex.If that's casual, then you only look after the sensations it will provide, and that even the "ugliest" person can do.

Well, even casual sex often leads to pregnancy, leading to at least some appearance selection. (Ie. If one only has sex with those with beneficial traits, one passes on one's genes more effectively than those who don't, and the effects of that can accumulate over generations.)

[The Sotoan Union]

Why is this so objective OP?

One can be too ugly for dating, but have casual sex with anyone.

Like what does that mean? They can't date anyone ever? Why? Will they get in trouble if they do? Almost everyone will have casual sex and dates. What does it mean when you say some people can and some people can't?

[Nanatsu no Tsuki]

Completely subjective. People can and have sex with others, independent of what is the "norm" on attractiveness.

[Arkolon]

Better appearance = better genes = more potential mates. Muscular 1m90 men with chiseled jaws are "sexy" because the impregnables are genetically predisposed to want to have their babies. For those who like men like Kevin Spacey, that's more because of his personality and social standing (also very important). Generally, "love" is the final-stage of subconscious mate-choosing, where we trade off negative traits for positive ones. We'd all love to marry Natalie Dormer (I know I'd like to), but my girlfriend isn't Natalie Dormer, but I love my girlfriend regardless. Despite how much it appears to belittle the sentiments, my subconscious decided that, despite her not being Natalie Dormer, she's my genes' best shot at good offspring and increased fitness. (edit:) So my brain now wants me to spend the rest of my life with her. Brains are amazing.

[Esternial]

"Attractive" is hard to quantify. Using something like "as attractive as" in your phrasing makes answering your question complicated because some people may consider others more attractive than them while from someone else's POV this may not be the case.

Some women are more attracted to chiseled/masculine men, others to "cute" men, etc.

Also counts vice-versa.

[The Lotophagi]

Muscular 1m90 men with chiseled jaws are "sexy" because the impregnables are genetically predisposed to want to have their babies.

'Impregnables', huh? Nice way to refer to women right there.

[Edgy Opinions]

Muscular 1m90 men with chiseled jaws are "sexy" because the impregnables are genetically predisposed to want to have their babies.

>implying genetics has secreted engineered everybody in society to be ideally dyadic (very dyadic, in fact) cis hetero
>implying cishetero attraction is uniform and biologically predestined
>implying humans would not have shifted from the usual sense of what is desirable reproductively speaking given our social animal, clannish and fragile young status
>implying

[Arkolon]

Muscular 1m90 men with chiseled jaws are "sexy" because the impregnables are genetically predisposed to want to have their babies.

'Impregnables', huh? Nice way to refer to women right there.

First I ever heard it, as "impregnators" to refer to a group of people of the male sex, I thought it was pretty funny. Must have been just me. Impregnators doesn't necessarily mean those of the male-gender, and includes trans* people in reference. Although, yeah, since I assumed the impregnables like impregnators, I assumed the sexuality, so the terms aren't as PC as they set out to be.

[Edgy Opinions]

First I ever heard it, as "impregnators" to refer to a group of people of the male sex, I thought it was pretty funny. Must have been just me. Impregnators doesn't necessarily mean those of the male-gender, and includes trans* people in reference. Although, yeah, since I assumed the impregnatables like impregnators, I assumed the sexuality, so the terms aren't as PC as they set out to be.

Those are actually better terms than male/female or man/woman according to my trans seal of approval.

Yet testicular and ovarian are far more proper.

[Grand Britannia]

Better appearance = better genes = more potential mates. Muscular 1m90 men with chiseled jaws are "sexy" because the impregnables are genetically predisposed to want to have their babies. For those who like men like Kevin Spacey, that's more because of his personality and social standing (also very important). Generally, "love" is the final-stage of subconscious mate-choosing, where we trade off negative traits for positive ones. We'd all love to marry Natalie Dormer (I know I'd like to), but my girlfriend isn't Natalie Dormer, but I love my girlfriend regardless. Despite how much it appears to belittle the sentiments, my subconscious decided that, despite her not being Natalie Dormer, she's my genes' best shot at good offspring and increased fitness. (edit:) So my brain now wants me to spend the rest of my life with her. Brains are amazing.

Kevin Spacy is pretty handsome you egg.

[Arkolon]

First I ever heard it, as "impregnators" to refer to a group of people of the male sex, I thought it was pretty funny. Must have been just me. Impregnators doesn't necessarily mean those of the male-gender, and includes trans* people in reference. Although, yeah, since I assumed the impregnatables like impregnators, I assumed the sexuality, so the terms aren't as PC as they set out to be.

Those are actually better terms than male/female or man/woman according to my trans seal of approval.

Yet testicular and ovarian are far more proper.

You ninja'd me in my explanation of the terms, and non-hetero sexualities are very much just as natural as hetero sexuality, which I forgot to add. Strictly speaking, cishet males look for females with better genes, amongst personality, social standing, and age.

On topic: I still prefer impregnator. It sounds like an action film.

[Arkolon]

Better appearance = better genes = more potential mates. Muscular 1m90 men with chiseled jaws are "sexy" because the impregnables are genetically predisposed to want to have their babies. For those who like men like Kevin Spacey, that's more because of his personality and social standing (also very important). Generally, "love" is the final-stage of subconscious mate-choosing, where we trade off negative traits for positive ones. We'd all love to marry Natalie Dormer (I know I'd like to), but my girlfriend isn't Natalie Dormer, but I love my girlfriend regardless. Despite how much it appears to belittle the sentiments, my subconscious decided that, despite her not being Natalie Dormer, she's my genes' best shot at good offspring and increased fitness. (edit:) So my brain now wants me to spend the rest of my life with her. Brains are amazing.

Kevin Spacy is pretty handsome you egg.

I... won't comment.

[The Lotophagi]

Muscular 1m90 men with chiseled jaws are "sexy" because the impregnables are genetically predisposed to want to have their babies.

>implying genetics has secreted engineered everybody in society to be ideally dyadic (very dyadic, in fact) cis hetero
>implying cishetero attraction is uniform and biologically predestined
>implying humans have shifted from the usual sense of what is desirable reproductively speaking given our social animal, clannish and fragile young status
>implying

It also assumes that traits that are sexually selected for are necessarily positive and increase the fitness of those who have them - which is not true in the least. Just ask all the poor tropical birds whose gigantic display feathers get caught in branches and cause them to get eaten by leopards.

[Novorobo]

Muscular 1m90 men with chiseled jaws are "sexy" because the impregnables are genetically predisposed to want to have their babies.

>implying genetics has secreted engineered everybody in society to be ideally dyadic (very dyadic, in fact) cis hetero
>implying cishetero attraction is uniform and biologically predestined
>implying humans would not have shifted from the usual sense of what is desirable reproductively speaking given our social animal, clannish and fragile young status
>implying

Well, yeah. On average we would mostly have incentive to bone the opposite sex. There is still some genetic advantage to having a few of us, but not most of us, be homosexual.

Muscular 1m90 men with chiseled jaws are "sexy" because the impregnables are genetically predisposed to want to have their babies.

'Impregnables', huh? Nice way to refer to women right there.

"Women" implies specifically human women. The term "impregnables" applies regardless of species, (ie. includes our ape ancestors) so it makes sense to me.

Why is this so objective OP?

One can be too ugly for dating, but have casual sex with anyone.

Like what does that mean? They can't date anyone ever? Why? Will they get in trouble if they do? Almost everyone will have casual sex and dates. What does it mean when you say some people can and some people can't?

Or that there would be no appeal to anyone, not even other ugly people, to dating them.

Or just about anyone, anyway. There's always a chance of an exception, hence the poll being open to selection of two options if one's opinion is between them.

[Esternial]

Better appearance = better genes = more potential mates. Muscular 1m90 men with chiseled jaws are "sexy" because the impregnables are genetically predisposed to want to have their babies.

Not particularly. We subconsciously look for positive traits to compensate for our own negatives, which means all these factors are variables rather than set values.

Some women may leave the muscular 1m90 man with the chiseled jaw on the side and opt for a man that has other traits.