Dating Down

[jyrffw54]

This is a rather interesting article I came across on Msn this morning about how couples with mismatched attractiveness, especially in favor of the female, tend to have more satisfying relationships.


Read it and tell me what you think!

http://glo.msn.com/relationships/dating-down-1533626.story?gt1=49006

 

[bs98r3kjf]

It makes a lot of sense when you think about the way the average man thinks. I've seen lots of examples of this in real life and relationships where the woman is gorgeous and the man is average usually end up being successful. This is a generalization, of course. I personally wouldn't mind being with a man who is less attractive physically than I am, because I don't focus so much on looks. And if it means there's a higher chance of him being committed and putting more into the relationship, that's a plus.

 

[Reon]

I've read similar articles before. I can't say that I agree or disagree with the premise; I do wonder about how the study was done though. A panel of individuals judged the attractiveness of the participants but...I'm not sure if that's really effective. Perhaps the perceived level of attractiveness by the participants might matter a little bit. Also depending on the panel, the scores might be swayed in a certain direction (For example, picking up on body language while observing the couple might show a slight lee way either way)

Anyways, it kind of makes it out to seem like 'attractive' men have options and generally no emotional standing in the relationship. And men in a relationship with a more attractive women seem to want to please her more, lest she go away. That might be the case really, but I hope it is not so.

 

[DevilDoll]

How exactly do you determine if someone is dating down? Beauty is subjective, right? I might see a couple out on the street and find the man to be drop dead gorgeous, but think the woman is a dog. The next person that passes them by may have the opposite thought. It's all based on a matter of opinion, which makes it difficult to get accurate data. People would first have to agree on what is considered to be attractive. I highly doubt that's going to happen any time soon, as has been made obvious in several recent threads on this very forum.

Also, I would never have a partner I viewed as less attractive than myself. Of course people around me may disagree on that, but I require extreme physical attraction to someone to make the relationship work. I am sure the couples involved in the study felt the same about their partners. If they don't they are settling and that disturbs me.

 

[NeverAmI]

It makes a lot of sense when you think about the way the average man thinks. I've seen lots of examples of this in real life and relationships where the woman is gorgeous and the man is average usually end up being successful. This is a generalization, of course. I personally wouldn't mind being with a man who is less attractive physically than I am, because I don't focus so much on looks. And if it means there's a higher chance of him being committed and putting more into the relationship, that's a plus.

Relying on negative traits to keep someone faithful suggests there is something seriously wrong.

 

[Phoenix Down]

Dude, I love adorable 4 year old girls! You can put them in frilly dresses and no one will think you're weird for doing so. If I ever have an adorable 4 year old, I'm going to stuff her/him in somthing like this:

Does this mean men should date up?
Not fair.

----------------------
Don't get me wrong, I don't want a mate that's demeaning, but I absolutely detest the "cling" effect that can occur. I'm not into settling.

 

[88chaz88]

The reason why this "dating down" apparently works better is because the focus is on the personality. If you're already sexually attracted to each other any more is completely moot as long as you're compatable.

Dude, I love adorable 4 year old girls! You can put them in frilly dresses and no one will think you're weird for doing so. If I ever have an adorable 4 year old, I'm going to stuff her/him in somthing like this:

Does this mean men should date up?
Not fair.

Of course the title could be interpreted as dating (Phoenix) Down.

 

[bs98r3kjf]

How exactly do you determine if someone is dating down? Beauty is subjective, right? I might see a couple out on the street and find the man to be drop dead gorgeous, but think the woman is a dog. The next person that passes them by may have the opposite thought. It's all based on a matter of opinion, which makes it difficult to get accurate data. People would first have to agree on what is considered to be attractive. I highly doubt that's going to happen any time soon, as has been made obvious in several recent threads on this very forum.

Good point.

Also, I would never have a partner I viewed as less attractive than myself. Of course people around me may disagree on that, but I require extreme physical attraction to someone to make the relationship work. I am sure the couples involved in the study felt the same about their partners. If they don't they are settling and that disturbs me.

It doesn't mean that someone is settling if they're in a relationship with someone who is less physically attractive than they are. Some people don't require an extreme sense of physical attraction but a higher sense of attraction of other aspects, such as someone's personality. I'd personally be a lot happier with someone who I was fairly attracted to physically but extremely attracted to in terms of personality than someone I was extremely attracted to physically but not as attracted to in terms of personality. To each his own but I cannot fathom that someone must be "settling" if they're focusing less on physical attraction.

 

[bs98r3kjf]

Relying on negative traits to keep someone faithful suggests there is something seriously wrong.

Who said anything about relying on so called "negative" traits? Feel free to reread my post carefully.

 

[NeverAmI]

Yea, people who aren't as attractive are going to attempt to accommodate in other areas, no shock there. But defining your relationship based on physical attractiveness, in either direction, seems incredibly narrow-minded.

Different people need different levels of beauty, but if someone is attractive, they are going to have a lot of other opportunities. Whether you can deal with that says more about you than them, even so, everyone has opportunities with someone else if they seize them. On the flip side, I would think the below average person would be more inclined to be unfaithful because the opportunities may be more intense to them.

However, this all boils down to the person. Based on the nature of statistics, there is a lot more average than above or below average.

 

[kita]

I think I'm "cute" on a good day...but my husband is one of those beautiful people. I guess there are benefits for both of us...I appreciate and fawn over him a bit more than I might otherwise, and he might feel more secure being in a relationship with me than with someone prettier. He does attract a lot of attention from other women when we go out, but honestly I feel more proud than threatened by it.

 

[NeverAmI]

Who said anything about relying on so called "negative" traits? Feel free to reread my post carefully.

I wasn't taking your words out of context, I was just adding my thoughts. Sorry if it seemed like I was implying something.

 

[bs98r3kjf]

I wasn't taking your words out of context, I was just adding my thoughts. Sorry if it seemed like I was implying something.

No problem.

 

[DevilDoll]

Good point.



It doesn't mean that someone is settling if they're in a relationship with someone who is less physically attractive than they are. Some people don't require an extreme sense of physical attraction but a higher sense of attraction of other aspects, such as someone's personality. I'd personally be a lot happier with someone who I was fairly attracted to physically but extremely attracted to in terms of personality than someone I was extremely attracted to physically but not as attracted to in terms of personality. To each his own but I cannot fathom that someone must be "settling" if they're focusing less on physical attraction.

I am not saying that everyone focuses 100% on physical attraction. However, it is the first impression we get and it sticks. It also directly influences whether or not we want to "mate" with someone. So does personality. Both play a factor in choosing proper mates. If someone picks a person who is highly compatible personality wise, but is sub par in the physical department is settling in one aspect.

Out of curiosity, would you willingly admit to your partner and others that you found them less attractive than yourself?

 

[VH]

I think it's more of a case that people inherently have a sense of whether or not someone is in their 'league' or not. There are a lot of factors to this and physical attractiveness is one. Charisma, perceptiveness, social status, intelligence, self confidence, and a whole host of other factors also apply, and as human beings we instinctively get these things.

Every now and then people will value different factors, and have some confusion as to whether or not someone is above or beneath them in this equation. It's funny when two people both feel they are dating down, but it's adorable when they both feel they are dating up.

This just proves one thing. The exact criteria is internal and personal to each person.

 

[bs98r3kjf]

I am not saying that everyone focuses 100% on physical attraction. However, it is the first impression we get and it sticks. It also directly influences whether or not we want to "mate" with someone. So does personality. Both play a factor in choosing proper mates. If someone picks a person who is highly compatible personality wise, but is sub par in the physical department is settling in one aspect.

Out of curiosity, would you willingly admit to your partner and others that you found them less attractive than yourself?

I disagree that the initial physical attraction sticks for everyone. If you see someone first without getting to know them and feel that they're somewhat attractive physically, then get to know them personality-wise, your initial idea of how physically attractive they are may either change or become irrelevant subconsciously. This is because the person actually starts to become a "whole person" in your mind, as opposed to the mere physical being they were in your mind before you got to know them personality-wise. After that "whole person" develops in someone's mind, (or my mind, at least), then I decide whether I actually want to be in a relationship with them/mate with them/marry them.

To answer your question, I'm not sure. I guess time will tell.

 

[VH]

Out of curiosity, would you willingly admit to your partner and others that you found them less attractive than yourself?

Wouldn't it be more accurate to ask if someone would be willing to admit to their partner that they found them less attractive than they could otherwise get, since dating down is the issue here?

I mean, I'm not that attractive, but I'm able to catch some very attractive women that are far more attractive than me. Even if I 'settled' for a woman who wasn't half as attractive as I could catch, she'd still be a lot more attractive than me.

 

[88chaz88]

I mean, I'm not that attractive.

You sell yourself short.

 

[Phoenix Down]

Of course the title could be interpreted as dating (Phoenix) Down.

Not likely, but that would make me feel special.

I am not saying that everyone focuses 100% on physical attraction. However, it is the first impression we get and it sticks. It also directly influences whether or not we want to "mate" with someone. So does personality. Both play a factor in choosing proper mates. If someone picks a person who is highly compatible personality wise, but is sub par in the physical department is settling in one aspect.

Out of curiosity, would you willingly admit to your partner and others that you found them less attractive than yourself?

I would totes admit to it, but only if explicitly asked.


But I won't have to worry about that since I Intend to find Mr. Darcy and have tea with him.

 

[Faye]

[MENTION=2096]DevilDoll[/MENTION], beauty isn't totally subjective, in the sense that people can generally agree to some extent who is and who is not attractive. They wont agree exactly, but you can get a consensus.



I think it might be because people put so much emphasis on the appearance of women while men are often portrayed as slobs. If the guy is better looking, the implication is "why isn't he with a more attractive woman?". She could also become insecure, whereas if she is with an unattractive man, she can worry less about him straying from her. Conversely, men are generally expected to make more money than women.

And considering there's a shortage of hot guys to go around these days, say researchers at the London School of Economics, the exchange between a lovely and a not-so-lovely works out perfectly. “An evolutionary strategy programmed into our DNA dictates that attractive people have 36 percent greater odds of having a daughter than a son,” says Satoshi Kanazawa Ph.D., a professor of management at the London School of Economics and Political Science. “Due to this evolutionary process and because physical attractiveness is highly heritable, there tends to be more beautiful women in the world than there are beautiful men.”

I'm having a really hard time believing this for some reason.