Relationship Deal Breakers

shopaholic01

Pug160 wrote: »

A pleasant personality can be infectious, possibly more so for women. I highly doubt it's pheromones or smells at play. Maybe you just can't quite understand why you like certain people and this pheromone theory looks like a possibility. But if you've nothing in common with someone and don't fancy them nothing else is going to make a difference, so I really don't buy the theory at all. There's no real evidence to support it either.

I'm not saying that it's all down to pheromones, just that there is more to it than looks alone. Initial attraction can't be put down to personality either, when you don't yet know the person.

Pug160

shopaholic01 wrote: »

I'm not saying that it's all down to pheromones, just that there is more to it than looks alone. Initial attraction can't be put down to personality either, when you don't yet know the person.

I disagree. I've seen life-and-soul-of-the-party type guys attract women because their fun personality was literally infectious. There was probably some degree of attraction too but looks weren't necessarily the main reason.

Anyway, I don't want to hijack the thread so I'll leave for a while and come back.

Legs.Eleven

kylith wrote: »

Or the gold medallions *shudder*

I love men with jewellery. Love the gold chain on the hairy chest. You think I jest but oh ho! I'm not!

--Kaiser--

shopaholic01 wrote: »

With the pheromone thing, a group of girls were asked to smell shirts worn by men after sport. The girls rated the smell and picked a favourite, one might find X shirt revolting, another would find it irresistable. There was a direct link to immunity of the individuals.

There seems to be two things women can subconsciously tell from pheromones, testosterone levels and genetic compatibility. Women were attracted to different levels of testosterone based on where they were on their menstrual cycle. Also when ovulating women were more attracted to people with different genetic profiles, and when not ovulating to more similar genetic profiles

cantdecide

shopaholic01 wrote: »

Have you ever just met someone and instantly thought 'I would', even though you know that you wouldn't give them a second glance if you spotted them across the room?

I believe that this may have never have happened with me. If I can't see someone's eyes, I'm not going to feel fully attracted to them even if they're exceptionally attractive.

shopaholic01 wrote: »

Have you never had a relationship with someone that you didn't find attractive initially? Someone that maybe 'grew' on you as you got to know them, or that you found attractive later?

That has happened. The ones I ended up being most attracted to aren't the most attractive ones.

shopaholic01

--Kaiser-- wrote: »

There seems to be two things women can subconsciously tell from pheromones, testosterone levels and genetic compatibility. Women were attracted to different levels of testosterone based on where they were on their menstrual cycle. Also when ovulating women were more attracted to people with different genetic profiles, and when not ovulating to more similar genetic profiles

Ovulating women are attracted to stronger alpha males - stronger genes for offspring, but more sensitive men at other time - help rear the baby. Obviously that's where testosterone comes in, I assume that's advertised by pheromones? Men are also more subconsciously attracted to ovulating women, and a woman's libido is higher.


*This is at least the third time I've posted this on boards, the last time was a day or two ago. I need to get out more!

Slide to power off

shopaholic01 wrote: »

Ovulating women are attracted to stronger alpha males - stronger genes for offspring, but more sensitive men at other time - help rear the baby. Obviously that's where testosterone comes in, I assume that's advertised by pheromones? Men are also more subconsciously attracted to ovulating women, and a woman's libido is higher.


*This is at least the third time I've posted this on boards, the last time was a day or two ago. I need to get out more!

It's fairly sh1t being a "sensitive" guy. Their wives basically don't want to have a baby with them, rather the alpha male down the road.

Snowie

shopaholic01 wrote: »

I'm not saying that it's all down to pheromones, just that there is more to it than looks alone. Initial attraction can't be put down to personality either, when you don't yet know the person.

so what your trying to say is o look at him/her of there. Hot, but its not really that important because if they haven't got a personality whats the use

shopaholic01

Snowie wrote: »

so what your trying to say is o look at him/her of there. Hot, but its not really that important because if they haven't got a personality whats the use

No, you need to read all the posts. I said that looks are only a small part of attraction (and it seems I'm in the minority here).

I was then talking about initial attraction to someone who isn't your typical 'type'. Another poster suggested that was down to personality and I replied that it can't be, if you don't know them.

TL:DR There are many things that attract us to people, and a lot of the time we wouldn't be able to explain it.

Actually Snowie, I reread your post! Yes looks will only get you so far, you have to have compatible personalities.

Snowie

shopaholic01 wrote: »

No, you need to read all the posts. I said that looks are only a small part of attraction (and it seems I'm in the minority here).

I was then talking about initial attraction to someone who isn't your typical 'type'. Another poster suggested that was down to personality and I replied that it can't be, if you don't know them.

TL:DR There are many things that attract us to people, and a lot of the time we wouldn't be able to explain it.

Actually Snowie, I reread your post! Yes looks will only get you so far, you have to have compatible personalities.

nah your not most of the male posters are either juvenile or trying to get you on the winde up. I find it hard to believe that people judge on looks alone.

Pug160

shopaholic01 wrote: »

Ovulating women are attracted to stronger alpha males - stronger genes for offspring, but more sensitive men at other time - help rear the baby. Obviously that's where testosterone comes in, I assume that's advertised by pheromones? Men are also more subconsciously attracted to ovulating women, and a woman's libido is higher.


*This is at least the third time I've posted this on boards, the last time was a day or two ago. I need to get out more!

My problem with a lot of these statements isn't the fact I don't agree with them, as I know there is a certain amount of scientific study to back them up, it's the fact that they generalise and oversimplify. Humans are far, far more complex than other animals. We have far more complex brains and have a certain amount of social conditioning added to that.

As for pheromones, scientists have yet to prove they even exist in humans. There is some evidence that certain smells do provoke responses - good and bad. But we still don't know the whys the hows and the other questions in this grey area. Some questions have been almost answered, like the differences in our genetic make up - which has been mentioned earlier in the thread. But there is no proof that pheromones themselves exist. Pheromones certainly haven't been used successfully when they've been man made.

All I'm saying is that most of what has been written is speculation. We know for a fact that looks and personality are important, there's no question about that. Unattractive people generally don't have the same romantic or sexual success as attractive people, just as socially inept people or people with ''dull'' personalities don't have much success either, so any benefit pheromones may have, even if they do exist - is surely in most cases negligible. Or they work in combination with other qualities.

Oxytocin may be the reason some people appear to get better looking the longer you know them. It's released when you have sex and it's supposed to further intimacy and love. If you haven't yet had sex then it's down to their personalities.

Pug160

shopaholic01 wrote: »

No, you need to read all the posts. I said that looks are only a small part of attraction (and it seems I'm in the minority here).

I was then talking about initial attraction to someone who isn't your typical 'type'. Another poster suggested that was down to personality and I replied that it can't be, if you don't know them.

TL:DR There are many things that attract us to people, and a lot of the time we wouldn't be able to explain it.

Actually Snowie, I reread your post! Yes looks will only get you so far, you have to have compatible personalities.

I would have thought most people do know. It's only occasionally that there is an unexplained attraction, but that doesn't automatically mean it's pheromones at play. It could be any number of things.

pharmaton

I've noticed that it's what someone might say on meeting them, like the first words out of their mouths have a huge impact on whether I find them attractive or not. Like it's a non intentional thing, I don't mean a formal greeting or anything but if I like what they say, or how they say it I'll most likely like them too. (as a non verbal type I find the ability of someone else to say something interesting enough to catch my attention a rarity) Might be pheromone related although I'm trying to figure out how.

worded

We need another thread "relationship deal makers" by the looks of things !

Thread is what breaks one !

If the OH can't make a good hang sangwich

Wibbs

Pug160 wrote: »

I'd agree with some of that. I think a lot of couples probably are similar in terms of looks. There are exceptions certainly, but I'd estimate the exceptions are in the range of about 1 in every 10 or so. I'd put smell/pheromones in 3rd place at best in terms of importance. Pheromones are very important in the animal kingdom but the role they play with humans is still not completely clear. I'll have to do more research but from the little I have read pheromones are not usually detectable from human to human as we don't have the capacity to detect them. And even if we did, which is a big if, most of us wash too often and use too many products for them to be detected.

I'll try and dig up a couple of research papers I have laying around(I'm odd. Fcuk off ). IIRC there is a nerve cluster found in other animals that was thought to be absent in humans, but it turned out it was present, just smaller.

shopaholic01 wrote: »

I'm starting to think I'm a freak!

Have you never had a relationship with someone that you didn't find attractive initially? Someone that maybe 'grew' on you as you got to know them, or that you found attractive later?

Maybe I'm shallow S, but honestly no. The "oh god I would" has to be there from the start. Now with some the more we engaged personally I and they would think "eh no" and that was the personality effect, but I've never had the "meh, not really" that turned into an attraction.

TBH at one point I did try to get over that shallowness - cos I did see it as such - and try to be more open on that score, even had a couple of flingettes on the back of it, but in the end and soon enough in, both came to the conclusion "eh no, let's be mates" instead.

Attraction and affection has certainly grown and grown a lot in me after getting to know someone, but the sexual/physical/visual attraction had to be there from the get go. EG a few years back I knew two women who hung out together and I was attracted to both. Now I was initially more attracted to Lady A, but ended up with Lady B as I got to know both of them more and she crept into my head and heart(and loins. I'm human), but there wasn't much in the diff with initial attraction. Looking back maybe I should have gone with Lady A. *



*I could be all macho and suggest a threeway, but on my best day I'm near huffing an inhaler clumsily attempting to satisfy one. Two? well I'd pray they were Bi and I'd go off and make a pot of tae.

candy-gal1

Cheating in any way and/or lying about things/keeping secrets would be my major dealbreakers in a relationship, if not my only ones.

princess-lala

Wibbs wrote: »

*I could be all macho and suggest a threeway, but on my best day I'm near huffing an inhaler clumsily attempting to satisfy one. Two? well I'd pray they were Bi and I'd go off and make a pot of tae.

Only you Wibbs

whirlpool

Spitting.
Littering.
Judging people.
Closed/narrow-mindedness.

I'm far from perfect, and I'm not judging, but those traits turn me off.


edit: they'd each be deal-breakers depending on how far into the relationship we are. I'm not gonna dump someone after 5 years for throwing a wrapper on the ground.

worded

Getting the snip but not telling the OH and then trying your hardest to have a child day and night for months on end.

I'm not speaking from experience !

princess-lala

worded wrote: »

Getting the snip but not telling the OH and then trying your hardest to have a child day and night for months on end.

:eek:

Oh my holy moses

:eek:

Controlling
Non-drinker
Not liking sport is ok but attempting to interfere in my attending or watching of sport is not (within reason, of course there has to be some exceptions)
Trying to influence the type of car I drive
Wanting to leave Ireland (except for a holiday of course)

Just a few of the top of my head.

ardle1

Not disclosing any ailments or diseases, I think that's a real Deal Breaker, well for me anyway... I'll never forget the time I was going out with this gorgeous girl,I thought we where really compatible especially in the bedroom,if you know what I mean, lets just say she nearly passed out a few times:cool:... Then one day out of the blue,she drops a bombshell, I was totally deflated and felt gutted, yes now she decides to tell me she had asthma all along..... Huh not so macho now,it took me two days to get over her:)

pharmaton

ardle1 wrote: »

yes now she decides to tell me she had asthma all along..... Huh not so macho now,it took me two days to get over her:)

you would break up with someone because they had asthma?

edit:ok I get it

ardle1

pharmaton wrote: »

you would break up with someone because they had asthma?

edit:ok I get it

ef43596c40e35ce8d96353881d0ddc5809c539e_t.gif

pharmaton

ardle1 wrote: »

ef43596c40e35ce8d96353881d0ddc5809c539e_t.gif

yah I didn't really think it was that funny either.


(on an unrelated note this time last year, after a feed of beers and having had a really heavy cold I went back to someones place and had a bit of a not being able to breathe moment while laying on her bed, she was all hot and heavy and I was a snotty incapable mess, she asked me did I want an inhaler which I used and then I passed out. I'm just about over her too.)

Ave Sodalis

Makenzie Fierce Coriander wrote: »

Non-drinker

May I just ask why this is?

sup_dude

sup_dude wrote: »

May I just ask why this is?

Just wouldn't work. Drinking is just too much a part of my life, it would be a massive thing we wouldn't have in common. Aside from the fact they would probably not understand the fact I go out drinking with friends and work colleges regularly, I really like going out drinking with my gf (just the two if us and having a laugh) or having a few at home watching a movie etc and so does she. I just can't imagine myself in a situation where the person I was with didn't drink.

I have no doubt it would lead to arguments and wouldn't last for any length if time.

Ave Sodalis

Makenzie Fierce Coriander wrote: »

Just wouldn't work. Drinking is just too much a part of my life, it would be a massive thing we wouldn't have in common. Aside from the fact they would probably not understand the fact I go out drinking with friends and work colleges regularly, I really like going out drinking with my gf (just the two if us and having a laugh) or having a few at home watching a movie etc and so does she. I just can't imagine myself in a situation where the person I was with didn't drink.

Can I just say though, as a non drinker, this is the typical view of non drinkers and very much the wrong one? As in, the nondrinker probably doesn't drink because they don't need to, not because they have a problem with it.

sup_dude

sup_dude wrote: »

Can I just say though, as a non drinker, this is the typical view of non drinkers and very much the wrong one? As in, the nondrinker probably doesn't drink because they don't need to, not because they have a problem with it.

I didn't say it was because they have a problem with it or anything like that. I just don't feel like it would be the same for me if the person I was going out with didn't enjoy drinking and the craic that goes with it. From doing shots at the end of the night to the sneaky cure the following afternoon!

Getting drunk with the person you are going out with is fantastic fun and it would be quite a big think to be missing out on.

Then you have the other side of things where a a non drinker may want to get up and do things on a Sunday morning while I would be sleeping late and recovering on the couch with a big fry in the afternoon etc.

speedboatchase

I couldn't have a relationship with a woman if she was:

A smoker
An Adam Sandler/Pitbull fan
Very hairy