I think what after all our confessions we really need to realise something - despite our preferences, love should concor all. Cheesey, but true. We may aim for our preferences but in the long run, if somebody clicks with you, then that's it - you're sold. Somebody could be covered in freckles chase, but if you fell in love with them, they wouldn't be an issue anymore - it'd be something you overlooked in favour of all else they have to offer to you. Girls/guys who claim to 'love' or 'like' somebody, but can't stand their faults or features against their preference and therefore can't commit themselves, frankly don't quite understand what 'love' really is. Or liking even, for that matter. Myself, I believe that we have our preferences - but love is about seeing their imperfections and loving them anyway. On first impressions, appearences and preferences seem important - but once that barrier is broken, I think it becomes an entirely different game all together. You may befriend somebody because of their personality, but not consider them as a love interest because their looks don't attract you in that particular way - no problem with that. But what happens when you fall in love anyway? Does that mean that you're betraying your standards? No, I don't think so personally. People are shallow to an extent - once we pass the trivial features of meeting somebody and eventually become their friend/lover, shallow shouldn't come into it. It becomes a case of whether you're able to follow your heart, or whether you're a truly shallow individual alltogether. It all comes out in the wash. We can't promise to love people despite their faults, but we should all be able to abandon the 'shallow' feature in favour of looking at somebody deeper, and giving both them and yourselves a chance. Also, i'd like to point out that beauty is of course all relative - somebody may find my weight to be unhealthy and even unsightly, whilst others will see me as being of a normal, healthy weight. There are no real conventions of beauty - and I would say, that from my experience of being around shallow people, that those who rely on conventions of what beauty actually is all have the same, often absurd image. I guess that's why the plastic surgery industry made such a mint - truly shallow people are incapable of appreciating another person's natural beauty, both inside and out. So, I guess that's my version. ------------------------------------- Also, can I just point out guys that whilst I think it's good that we can all admit to having shallow qualities to some extent (or at some point in our lives), this isn't an opportunity to start outlining what we find to be ugly as though it wouldn't hurt anybody. Preferences are fine, but there's no need to get personal. I have freckles - and I don't even notice them. IMO, it's a ridiculous thing to focus on, and it certainly isn't ugly, or 'scary'.
When I first met the man who would become my husband, I immediately crossed him off the dating list. He just wasn't my type. Now I know he did the same because I wasn't his type either. At the time I dated blonde, buff gym rats. He dated tall girly girls who never had a hair out of place and didn't go to the mailbox without full makeup on. That shallowness let us become really great friends and learn to love each other without all the messy sexual tension getting in the way. I guess all I mean to say is don't name the well from which you will not drink.
Acknowledging and embracing your base instincts isn't shallowness. Even letting them influence your decisions isn't shallowness. It only becomes a bad thing once you let them override your consciousness and ability to choose something better.
In your opinion. I never said anything about all base instincts, I was mentioning at most a few. Still though even if you say that it's okay to let it influence your actions, many health related issues (mental and physical) come from doing just that. Things aren't as black and white as influence is good overriding is bad. In my humble opinion. Ah excuse me. I have the "last word-complex"
I will save Ragnar from his last-word complex! So in the end (lol; as if), I suppose we go to what Ashleigh and Romantic Rose are saying. In the end, a natural love is what wins out. Shallow, base instincts might start the process rolling, but it will fizzle out if there's nothing more significant to base the relationship on.
Now how is that you manage to say everything that I was trying to say, but in about 400 less words? LOL.
Please remember, as with all threads that have the potential to upset people or bring up issues which may be upsetting, to be tactful with all comments. Insensitive and potentially upsetting comments will not be tolerated.
I saw that guy's stupid comment. Nice to see some proper moderation though, most forums have nothing on this one
Shallow as you may call it, physical appearances are more important to people than they want to admit. Studies have revealed that people blessed with better looks often receive higher wages and better customer service. In some families, prettier children receive more attention and better care than their siblings. It's subconscious, it's unfair, but it's true. Just blame evolution.
Blame volution? No way. Some animals choose partners with handicaps because they have been strong enough to survive with that exact handicap. Others choose animals that have been either cunning enough to attain something or strong enough. It's natural selection for improvement of the species. Instead humans have this.. ridiculous mess. Blame humanity. We messed up on our own, nothing to do with evolution.
Depends on how you define natural selection now doesn't it. Ah my bad. Insects do that. The exact species in question.. I don't know. I think it was either flies or gnats. I seem to remember that there were several species that did that but of that I'm not sure. Source was a documentary from BBC I think. I think it was that old SIR who made it.
Everyone sees things differently, there are bound to be people that will define it differently than you yourself do out there. Well unless you're referring to Darwin's definition of the phrase. Then no, I don't believe humans are effectively improving their species DNA-wise.
Quit dodging the question. What is the definition you are using, and are you saying that humans are immune to natural selection?
Did I ever say humans are immune to natural selection? I love the way you read a whole bunch of nonsense into the phrase "ridiculous mess".
I never said it is hopeless to find a partner for life if you have average looks or some disability. I'm stating that humans, like all animals, have a natural tendency to be attracted toward things that are aesthetically pleasing, such as facial symmetry, certain physiques, etc., because those features denote a favorable trait which can be passed on to offspring. This does not necessarily equate to relationships based on looks alone. It simply creates an inevitable bias that works in favor of the genetically blessed.
What? That's not what I said either. I said don't blame evolution for shallowness. Humans have the choice to ignore that particular instinct, and for all I know animals may have that same choice as well.
Actually I'm reading a whole bunch of nonsense into Natural selection is the primary cause of evolution. The biases of society determine who has children with who, hence natural selection. No evolution implies no natural selection, which by definition means no biases, which means the issue being discussed is a complete hallucination. If you would like people to stop reading a whole bunch of nonsense into what you say, then you should return the favor. Edit: Oh, and you still haven't answered the question. And by the way, natural selection doesn't go away because of our ability to make another choice.
So you're going to ignore the choice? People choose to be shallow, they can follow their instincts and try to woe any attractive person that they know or they can choose not to. It's like saying that someone who is fat because of eating 3 bags of chips per day is fat because of the instinct to eat. By all means blame evolution for shallow people, I choose to blame the shallow people themselves.
"The process in nature by which, according to Darwin's theory of evolution, only the organisms best adapted to their environment tend to survive and transmit their genetic characteristics in increasing numbers to succeeding generations while those less adapted tend to be eliminated." As far as I'm concerned you don't need to be very adapted to society or your general environment to reproduce. What's so incredibly important about my opinion? It's not like it's going to make a difference.
Yes I did. Does the "instinct" come from evolution? I don't know, I haven't been alive long enough to tell for sure. But my guess is that it does, and I thought I made that clear, well actually I don't think I ever said anything that would lead you to believe differently but I'm weird and need to sleep so :/
