Are ugliness and disability comparable disadvantages when dating??

Czarcasm

UCDVet wrote: »

Almost everyone basically agrees on what is attractive. Attractive people have a much easier time dating, will date more people on average, will date more attractive people on average, will have more sexual partners on average. They'll also have larger social circles, more people who consider them friends. More interestingly is that attractive people are better paid and thought more highly off, than ugly peers.

So yeah, being ugly *is* a disadvantage in life and especially when dating.

Thinking you're ugly is the disadvantage, nobody finds someone with a shìtty attitude attractive.

A quick Google shows lots of articles/blogs/websites talking about the difficulties of dating with a disability. There are even websites exclusively targeted at people with disabilities, implying that regular dating sites aren't meeting the demand of this particular group.

There are dating websites exclusively targeted at every way in which you'd care to differentiate yourself.

So, while it doesn't give everyone a nice warm and fuzzy feeling - OP, your suspicion is correct. Generally speaking, dating is harder while ugly. Dating is also harder while disabled.

It's really not. Dating is only as hard as you make it on yourself. Like anything else in life - having a positive attitude to life is attractive, and making an effort makes a person twice as attractive, and as they create opportunities for themselves, that's how they meet more people and are attractive to more people, because they make things happen for themselves and use what they have got, than moan about what they haven't got.

Daveysil15

Wishiwasa Littlebitaller wrote: »

It's a not very politically correct to say this and people will get way more brownie points for saying things such as: looks don't matter, it's what's inside that really counts, just believe in yourself, the only person who limits you, is you, blah blah, Tony Robbins, blah blah blah.. but the cold hard truth is, that humans are a fcuking shallow lot and leagues do exist.
Try and find a picture on the web of a tall dark, chisel faced, extraordinary handsome, blue eyed, model type guy, standing beside his little fat mong, confused headed wife and I'll give you a thousand euro. Or conversely, a Candice Swanepoel type schmoozing a Brian Cowen type (only stipulation being that they both are of the roughly the same financial standing as each other).

here.jpg I'll have that thousand euro now please. :pac:

Ahh no in fairness its not that common but it does happen. Another example I can think of; albeit not as extreme as your description, is Christopher Nolan's wife who is a bit on the heavy side. He's a wealthy handsome man, although I could be wrong on the handsome bit, (ladies feel free to contradict me) but that's point, it is rather subjective.

Shakespeare's Sister

Muise... wrote: »

I think that was the point of the argument that leagues are all in the mind; that everyone's attraction and attractiveness are different and fluid.

Attractiveness is, but looks can be less subjective. As I said though, very few people are hideous - or drop-dead gorgeous, so for the vast majority in between, it's more applicable.
But when talking about extremes, the league thing is less in the mind.

On a tangent: Does anyone find that programme The Undateables uncomfortable viewing? I saw it once and thought it was horrible - presented in a real point-and-laugh, freak-show manner. It's not people with disabilities and disfigurements having a dating/sex life I have an issue with (more power to them) it's the exploitative manner in which the topic is raised in that show.

Wishiwasa Littlebitaller

Magaggie wrote: »

Good points undermined by terms like "little fat mong" (wtf?) and that scale out of 10 bullsh-t as if humans are akin to products in those brand comparison tests.

Okay: 'little fat ugly person'. Thought mong had almost replaced the word ugly, to be honest, seems to be used that much these days. Anyway, as for the scale, how else can someone convey points on a scale without using numbers? If I had used letters, would it have made a difference, other than a meaningless cosmetic one? I'm not saying it's nice to be referred to in that way, but it's the harsh reality of life that we are all on different points of the aesthetic scale. It's just that it is taboo to talk about it publicly. If I had talked about people being 8 or 9 on a personality scale, nobody would care, but when's looks, people don't like it as it means having to deal with realities which we don't like to face.

UCDVet

Czarcasm wrote: »

Thinking you're ugly is the disadvantage, nobody finds someone with a shìtty attitude attractive.





There are dating websites exclusively targeted at every way in which you'd care to differentiate yourself.





It's really not. Dating is only as hard as you make it on yourself. Like anything else in life - having a positive attitude to life is attractive, and making an effort makes a person twice as attractive, and as they create opportunities for themselves, that's how they meet more people and are attractive to more people, because they make things happen for themselves and use what they have got, than moan about what they haven't got.

Your presenting a false dilemma. It's not a question of, 'Would you rather date someone who is attractive *OR* has a positive attitude'. Those things are not mutually exclusive.

All other things being equal, nearly everyone, would rather date the more attractive person.

Take height as an example. Pretty much every woman I've ever met in my entire life, has had some fairly strict height requirements for who they date. Most women do not find shorter men to be attractive. That's not bad, that's not wrong, it's a physical trait that they find unattractive. It doesn't make them shallow, everyone looks to date people they are attracted to.

But pretending a guy who is 5'1" is going to have an equal chance meeting girls at a bar as a guy who is 6'1" is pretty crazy, IMHO.

I know personally, I've known several girls who I've gotten along with great; but I wouldn't date them. Not in a million years. I'd talk to them, hang out with them, I would be their friend, talk to them about their problems, listen to their day, go to the mall together, whatever - but I wouldn't *date* them. Because I found them unattractive.

No matter how nice they were, no matter how friendly, no matter how positive their attitude was - I'm sorry - I had zero interest. Literally, there was nothing (short of changing how they looked) any of them could have ever done. All of the pick up guides/cosmo tips *nothing*. It didn't matter if they played hard to get, or asked me out directly, or tried to make me jealous, or flirted or talked about sex, or even flat out offered me a sexual favour...I wouldn't be interested. Only because I didn't find them physically attractive.

Certainly, so long as people like me (and women who don't date short guys or men who don't date fat chicks, or people who don't date nerdy guys with cystic acne) exist - dating will be *harder* for people who aren't generally perceived as attractive.

Muise...

Wishiwasa Littlebitaller wrote: »

Okay: 'little fat ugly person'. Thought mong had almost replaced the word ugly, seems to be used that much these days. As for the scale, how else can someone convey points on a scale without using numbers? If I had used letters, would it have made a difference, other than a meaningless cosmetic one? I'm not saying it's nice to be referred to in that way, but it's the harsh reality of life that we are all on different points of the aesthetic scale. It's just that it is taboo to talk about it publicly. If I had talked about people being 8 or 9 on a personality scale, nobody would care, but when's looks, people don't like it as it means having to deal with realities which we don't like to face.

Some of us don't use scales. We just gravitate toward people we like, without filing everyone into categories.

Shakespeare's Sister

As for the scale, how else can someone convey points on a scale without using numbers?

Or just use terms like "beautiful", "plain", "(un)attractive", "average-looking"?
Taboo to use that 1-10 thing publicly? Are you having a laugh? The internet is saturated in the ****ing thing!

When it comes to looks, there are indeed better looking and better looking again and better looking yet again, but a numerical scale... not seeing the necessity of it.

Vito Corleone

One thing I always see on Facebook is people saying you look gorgeous to people who clearly don't. I've never been able to understand why people are so false, as if there is any possible way the person they're saying it to believes them. Why give someone false hope? Why insult their intelligence.

UCDVet

A simple experiment that would settle this debate would be to create two identical profiles on any online dating site. Keep all of the content the same, same likes, same dislikes, only for the first profile use a very attractive person's picture. For the second profile use a very unattractive person's picture.

If they get an equal number of unsolicited messages - then I'm wrong.
If the attractive profile gets more unsolicited messages - then I'm right.

Oh wait - this has already been done.

"At this point, I had ten profiles with similar sounding usernames, all with the same answers to 25 questions, with the same written profile and personal stats (all heights consistent, the same level of education, etc.)," Millward wrote on his blog. This means the only difference between all ten participants was their profile picture.

Millward did find there were huge differences in the attention each profile received. He noticed the two women who were at the top of his attractiveness scale received 581 percent more messages than the other three women combined.

That_Girl_ Is_ A_Cowboy

In relation to disability - I have an opinion which sometimes doesn't go down very well. In my opinion many, many people who are well and able bodied are handicaps in their own way. Negative traits eg lying, bitterness, those who want to hold the upper hand in relationships, greed, selfishness, there's so much more too - well they are all handicaps.

Xeyn

Attractiveness is partially a social construct. People who are constantly exposed to western media have a different concept of what is attractive to those who don't. And societies ideal man and woman is constantly evolving. There is simply no one person who everyone in the world will agree is attractive.
What you can say is that in modern Ireland this is considered attractive- however you'll still find a lot of people contradicting you.
Shallowness is viewing someone's external attributes as more important than their character or personality. Even if it's the norm it doesn't change the fact that it is still shallow to disregard someone because of their appearance.

onrail

UPDATE: After another bit of chat I now have a clearer idea of what her disability is. Minor enough, but noticeable.

I've also subsequently found out that she's a smoker... That might be more of a deal breaker than the disability!

Shakespeare's Sister

But you gotta be physically attracted to someone to start a relationship with them in fairness. I think the term "shallow" is too harsh given the above reality.
I agree the idea of what's attractive has changed throughout time, but what individuals find attractive is not something voluntary.
It doesn't mean people have to be gorgeous for others to find them attractive on first meeting either.

But this thing of all women being mad for Chippendale-esque men... I just cannot find anything even slightly attractive in that look.

ratmouse

Wishiwasa Littlebitaller wrote: »

Nah that's just how we like to dress it up, it's not true - be nice if it were though.

If people couldn't help who the were attracted to, we would see tons of mongs marrying models, but we don't, as it's a just a nice fallacy we tell ourselves to avoid having to deal with the fact that humans are quite discriminatory and very shallow when it comes to who we choose to spend the rest of the lives with. 'We all find different people attractive, plain and simple' suggests that people are attracted to a certain type and nothing they can do about that, but if that were true, then you would see a broad mix of couples who all are positioned at differing points on what I call the aesthetic scale, but we don't.

Sure, some people at 7, marry a 9 and vice versa, and some who are a 3, will pull an 8, but by and large, people will tend to end up with a partner who is one or two notches off where they are. That's why most people who are at 3, 4 or 5, will end up with partners at that level and most people that are a 9 or 10, will end up with a partner who is a 9 and 10. There'll always be exceptions, especially when one partner has a larger bank account than the other, but in the main, this is how it works.

For you to say "it's not true" would suggest that what you are suggesting that your point is based on scientific fact. I doubt it. For example, I know people who specifically find spectacle wearers very attractive and in some cases, actively try to date people with glasses. I know of others who immediately associate glasses with being ugly and nerdy and to such a degree that some would say "suppose X isn't that bad but they wear glasses so.....". In the same way that some guys find skinny girls unattractive and others find them good looking. You see? Beauty being in the eye of the beholder seems to be a concept that does exist.

Wishiwasa Littlebitaller

Magaggie wrote: »

Or just use terms like "beautiful", "plain", "(un)attractive", "average-looking"?

When it comes to looks, there are indeed better looking and better looking again and better looking yet again, but a numerical scale... not seeing the necessity of it.

Ah come on. It's still a scale, you're just using words rather than numbers :P

Maphisto

onrail wrote: »

UPDATE: After another bit of chat I now have a clearer idea of what her disability is. Minor enough, but noticeable.

I've also subsequently found out that she's a smoker... That might be more of a deal breaker than the disability!

Really. Given your OP, I just find that really surprising.

Wishiwasa Littlebitaller

Muise... wrote: »

Some of us don't use scales. We just gravitate toward people we like, without filing everyone into categories.

Yeah, cause that's what I said.

Look, you can keep posting "right on" rubbish that will inevitably garner thanks from those that like to peddle the same sort of nonsense until the cows come home, but it won't make it any the more true. When it comes to dating, and mingling with potential partners, people gravitate to who they find most attractive, and are most likely to have success with, based on their own attractiveness level.

To suggest that that people don't consider those things, is really just idealistic, politically correct, nonsense that people say to make themselves feel better. Even if the scale only had five positions: Beautiful, Very Good Looking, Average, Below Average and Ugly, it is still a scale and something that people most certainly bear in mind when dating or meeting potential partners. If there was an ounce of truth to what you nonsensically suggest, then we would see a broad evidence of it, but the reality is that we don't. What we see is that in general, like (roughly) dates and indeed, marries, like.

PizzamanIRL

onrail wrote: »

UPDATE: After another bit of chat I now have a clearer idea of what her disability is. Minor enough, but noticeable.

I've also subsequently found out that she's a smoker... That might be more of a deal breaker than the disability!

So you're not just using smoking as an excuse to end it instead of the disability?

AlwaysAnyTime

onrail wrote: »

UPDATE: After another bit of chat I now have a clearer idea of what her disability is. Minor enough, but noticeable.

I've also subsequently found out that she's a smoker... That might be more of a deal breaker than the disability!

Eww, this would put me off a girl more than any disability. Can smokers not smell themselves after a cigarette, it's vomit inducing.

ratmouse

Wishiwasa Littlebitaller wrote: »

Yeah, cause that's what I said.

Look, you can keep posting "right on" rubbish that will inevitably garner thanks from those that like to peddle the same sort of nonsense until the cows come home, but it won't make it any the more true. When it comes to dating, and mingling with potential partners, people gravitate to who they find most attractive, and are most likely to have success with, based on their own attractiveness level.

To suggest that that people don't consider those things, is really just idealistic, politically correct, nonsense that people say to make themselves feel better. Even if the scale only had five positions: Beautiful, Very Good Looking, Average, Below Average and Ugly, it is still a scale and something that people most certainly bear in mind when dating or meeting potential partners. If there was an ounce of truth to what you nonsensically suggest, then we would see a broad evidence of it, but the reality is that we don't. What we see is that in general, like (roughly) dates and indeed, marries, like.

But you do realise that what you are saying is your own opinion and if some of the rest of differ, then that's our opinion?

onrail

PizzamanIRL wrote: »

So you're not just using smoking as an excuse to end it instead of the disability?

Dont think so... Just like the disability, its not ideal, but I'll give it a chance when we meet!

Shakespeare's Sister

Wishiwasa Littlebitaller wrote: »

Look, you can keep posting "right on" rubbish

It's not "right on" - some of us just dislike that out-of-10 thing. It's crass and unnecessary. It doesn't mean though that I also buy into the notion that anyone can be with anyone and looks never matter.

Even if the scale only had five positions: Beautiful, Very Good Looking, Average, Below Average and Ugly, it is still a scale and something that people most certainly bear in mind when dating or meeting potential partners.

Can't those terms be used though instead of out-of-10? One person's 7 might be another person's 9 anyway. The descriptive terms are more all-encompassing.
That out-of-10 stuff is PUA language and it's socially inept stuff.

littleblackDRS

Researchers who have observed couples in public settings have found that they are remarkably well matched in physical attractiveness (Feingold, 1988).

This has led to a hypothesis called the matching hypothesis (Stiles et al., 1996).

Evidence for the matching hypothesis includes such findings as ... physically similar couples are more intimate in public settings and report greater love for one another than the physically mismatched (Murstein, 1972). Studies in North America, Europe, and Asia indicate that matched couples are more likely to get married and stay married than those who are physically mismatched (Peterson & Miller, 1980; White, 1980).

So people do take physical attractiveness into account, and the do rate each other, even unconsciously.

Wishiwasa Littlebitaller

ratmouse wrote: »

For you to say "it's not true" would suggest that what you are suggesting that your point is based on scientific fact. I doubt it. For example, I know people who specifically find spectacle wearers very attractive and in some cases, actively try to date people with glasses. I know of others who immediately associate glasses with being ugly and nerdy and to such a degree that some would say "suppose X isn't that bad but they wear glasses so.....". In the same way that some guys find skinny girls unattractive and others find them good looking. You see? Beauty being in the eye of the beholder seems to be a concept that does exist.

I'm saying it's not true in my experience.

To illustrate my views, I did also point out that is also why it so hard to find real life examples of people at the very high end of the aesthetic scale, dating / marrying people are the lower end of it. As I said before, you'll get occasional exceptions to that for sure, but in the main, real life backs up my opinion and not the idealistic opposing one. Hence my contention that what I say was "true".

ratmouse wrote: »

But you do realise that what you are saying is your own opinion and if some of the rest of differ, then that's our opinion?

Of course I do, yes - with the primary difference that my opinion is right and yours is wrong.

UCDVet

ratmouse wrote: »

But you do realise that what you are saying is your own opinion and if some of the rest of differ, then that's our opinion?

Opinions on subjective topics are all equally valid...

If *I* like pizza and *you* like ice cream....we're both presenting our opinions. They're unique to us. Those opinions are equally valid.

But opinions on non-subjective topics aren't really opinions at all. It's just a belief. And, many times, they are falsifiable.

'In my opinion, McDonald's is the least successful restaurant in Ireland' <-- Throwing the phrase 'my opinion' to the front, doesn't mean I'm not wrong. For any reasonable measure of success, McDonald's isn't the least successful restaurant in Ireland.

'In my opinion, dating while unattractive is no harder than dating while attractive' <-- is the same thing. I can present that as an opinion, but there are lots of objective ways I can prove or disprove it. We can take an attractive person and have them wear a fat suit and see if they have better luck speed dating while 'attractive' or while 'unattractive' (as an example). We can make identical online profiles, but with different pictures and compare how often people chat with them. There are lots of non-subjective ways to measure this.

ratmouse

Wishiwasa Littlebitaller wrote: »

I'm saying it's not true in my experience.

To illustrate my views, I did also point out that is also why it so hard to find real life examples of people at the very high end of the aesthetic scale, dating / marrying people are the lower end of it. As I said before, you'll get occasional exceptions to that for sure, but in the main, real life backs up my opinion and not the idealistic opposing one. Hence my contention that what I say was "true".



Of course I do, yes - with the primary difference that my opinion is right and yours is wrong.

And the secondary and tertiary differences?

Muise...

Wishiwasa Littlebitaller wrote: »

Yeah, cause that's what I said.

Look, you can keep posting "right on" rubbish that will inevitably garner thanks from those that like to peddle the same sort of nonsense until the cows come home, but it won't make it any the more true. When it comes to dating, and mingling with potential partners, people gravitate to who they find most attractive, and are most likely to have success with, based on their own attractiveness level.

To suggest that that people don't consider those things, is really just idealistic, politically correct, nonsense that people say to make themselves feel better. Even if the scale only had five positions: Beautiful, Very Good Looking, Average, Below Average and Ugly, it is still a scale and something that people most certainly bear in mind when dating or meeting potential partners. If there was an ounce of truth to what you nonsensically suggest, then we would see a broad evidence of it, but the reality is that we don't. What we see is that in general, like (roughly) dates and indeed, marries, like.

You're in a bit of a subjective tangle here - your "proof" is your judgement on the attractiveness rating of each person in each couple? Or is it your conviction on what everyone else thinks when they go out meeting people?

Daveysil15

Vito Corleone wrote: »

They're not in a relationship lol.

Not anymore maybe, but Hollywood couples rarely last long anyway. Is Ashton Kutcher still dating Demi Moore or is he with that Mila Kuntis one now? It's hard to keep up.

OnTheCouch

It would be foolish and naive to pretend that these leagues of attractiveness do not occur in some form or another. What is of course different is how attraction is perceived, so yes, if we were to use a scale, everyone on this thread would probably have a different idea of what constitutes a '9' and so on.

Xeyn said the media and cultural influences also have a huge influence. This is undeniable. One just needs to look at how in many countries pale skin is sought after and considered the epitome of beauty, whereas in more Western nations, there is this ingrained obsession with being as tanned as possible. Although I see evidence of this perception shifting very slightly in the last few years, clearly there was some very clever subliminal advertising at some point which convinced people that to have a tan was tantamount to being handsome, popular, glamorous etc. Possible the Coco Chanel ads? I am not sure really.

Nonetheless I will agree that everything being equal, people will generally pair up with someone of equivalent attractiveness. This is seen most patently with internet dating and dating apps, where looks are basically everything. Clearly for attractive girls who have literally hundreds of options to choose from, they can then pick the cream of the crop of the males, not because they are superficial (even though some may be) but simply because there is nothing else to go on.

Both sexes can of course punch above their weight, but I would argue this is easier for men than women. The latter can wear makeup, nice clothes and so on in order to improve her lot, but men can do better in numerous ways ranging from having confidence, good dress sense, a higher social status, e.g. being a celebrity, money, charm/impeccable manners, good sense of humour, intelligence, good body language, a lot of influence, even kindness . Many of these can also be applied to women, but they wouldn't flick men's switches as much as vice versa.

Now of course, the greater the disparity in looks, the more extreme the above factors have to be. As UCDvet said earlier, if a man of 5'1 goes into a normal bar, without highly significant celebrity or influence/charisma, he is going to find it hard even to pick up the less striking females. Plus the very good looking of both sexes will always have more options, that's natural enough.

To come back to the OP's point, I suppose it's simply going to be a calculation as to whether her disability outweighs her personality or the other way round. I don't think it's any simpler or more complicated than that. He seems to like her personality and her looks already, so if the disability is minor, I would assume there won't be an issue, but if it's something that makes him quite uncomfortable it may be fairer for both sides to let this be known as soon as possible. Of course people in wheelchairs find partners all the time, but it's purely a personal decision.

bb1234567

OnTheCouch wrote: »

It would be foolish and naive to pretend that these leagues of attractiveness do not occur in some form or another. What is of course different is how attraction is perceived, so yes, if we were to use a scale, everyone on this thread would probably have a different idea of what constitutes a '9' and so on.

Xeyn said the media and cultural influences also have a huge influence. This is undeniable. One just needs to look at how in many countries pale skin is sought after and considered the epitome of beauty, whereas in more Western nations, there is this ingrained obsession with being as tanned as possible. Although I see evidence of this perception shifting very slightly in the last few years, clearly there was some very clever subliminal advertising at some point which convinced people that to have a tan was tantamount to being handsome, popular, glamorous etc. Possible the Coco Chanel ads? I am not sure really.

Nonetheless I will agree that everything being equal, people will generally pair up with someone of equivalent attractiveness. This is seen most patently with internet dating and dating apps, where looks are basically everything. Clearly for attractive girls who have literally hundreds of options to choose from, they can then pick the cream of the crop of the males, not because they are superficial (even though some may be) but simply because there is nothing else to go on.

Both sexes can of course punch above their weight, but I would argue this is easier for men than women. The latter can wear makeup, nice clothes and so on in order to improve her lot, but men can do better in numerous ways ranging from having confidence, good dress sense, a higher social status, e.g. being a celebrity, money, charm/impeccable manners, good sense of humour, intelligence, good body language, a lot of influence, even kindness . Many of these can also be applied to women, but they wouldn't flick men's switches as much as vice versa.

Now of course, the greater the disparity in looks, the more extreme the above factors have to be. As UCDvet said earlier, if a man of 5'1 goes into a normal bar, without highly significant celebrity or influence/charisma, he is going to find it hard even to pick up the less striking females. Plus the very good looking of both sexes will always have more options, that's natural enough.

To come back to the OP's point, I suppose it's simply going to be a calculation as to whether her disability outweighs her personality or the other way round. I don't think it's any simpler or more complicated than that. He seems to like her personality and her looks already, so if the disability is minor, I would assume there won't be an issue, but if it's something that makes him quite uncomfortable it may be fairer for both sides to let this be known as soon as possible. Of course people in wheelchairs find partners all the time, but it's purely a personal decision.

Kind of easier to put on a bit of makeup and highheels though than to be rich/ charming/funny/intelligent /////