There is a perception among some men and some women that men are first and primarily interested in looks. Some provide evo-bio-psych reasoning for this or attribute it to social conditioning. Though there may be something to the notion that looks are broadly more important to men than to women, I think that this effect is greatly exaggerated when it comes to men pursuing anything beyond a cheap and easy lay.
I personally learned the limits of beauty the most straightforward way: I briefly dated a conventionally beautiful woman several steps above me in terms of popular perception and found the whole thing far less fulfilling than advertised. Yes, it’s neat to be seen with a woman that is your better. It’s neat to be able to show her picture to your friends and have them be impressed.
But… relationships are work. The person you are in a relationship with is a partner in an endeavor. You don’t have to be particularly deep to recognize that this is a person that you want to be able to get along with. Now, for a limited time you can get along with anyone. For actual staying power, though, you need more.
Though I may have been confronted with it in a particularly straightforward manner, I don’t think I am at all unusual when push comes to shove. I have seen, time and time again, guys leave women for conventionally less attractive ones. And it’s not a matter of the latter being more up their alley (physically speaking). I’ve known guys that have said that they could never date a fat girl end up foregoing more attractive options for a girl that’s overweight.
I admit, though, that sometimes I do forget these things. I’ve been watching Grey’s Anatomy lately. Earlier in the show, everyman George O’Malley manages to hook up with the super-hot Izzy Stephens (Katherine Heigl’s character). As the relationship dissolves, by mutual consent, I am sitting there saying “Dude! You’re never going to do better than her!” And as far as the beauty criterion is concerned, he never does. But… if you’re not happy, you’re not happy. The difference between being with someone that you’re genuinely good with and being with someone that you’re mutually attracted to is significant.
Stephens later contracts cancer and is bed-ridden. Yeah, that’s soap opera kind of stuff, but variations of it are always occurring. The superficial attraction runs dry when the hot girl comes home, day after day, tired and angry at work. Or relies too much on you. Most of the time, there is a reason that the girl is dating down, and when you discover that reason, and the luster fades when you discover it.
I fought to save the not-really-a-relationship mentioned above until the bitter end. And then when it was over, I was relieved.
More broadly, one of the things I’ve discovered is that people that have never been in a position to achieve X, which they’ve always wanted, vastly overestimate what they would be willing to put up for it. And this is true when it comes to securing an attractive woman. You may think you can put up with obnoxious behavior, or regular emotional breakdowns, or any number of other things for the sake of their beauty… but more often than you think, you’re not. Or if you try to stick it out, like I did, it doesn’t make you happy like you think it will.
One of the things that I have come to notice is that relationships generally work better between relatively equally-yoked people. People in the same general level of attractiveness, same league of intelligence, same economic background, and same general age bracket (though what that bracket is varies with age). That’s not to say that relationships outside these things can’t work. They often do. But they often tend to be the product of people with a general lack of options. That’s not to say that their affections are insincere. People with a lack of options can (though do not always) have a better appreciation for the options they do have. But it’s generally the resort of people that have specific relationship needs, have some key drawback, live in a place where options are limited, and so on. And sometimes things that are less likely to work do actually work.
Opposites may attract in some contexts, but I think on the basics when it comes to things that can generally be sorted into “more desirable” and “less desirable” categories, it leads to more problems than it does complimentarianism. The complimentarianism part comes in the intangibles and the neutral. Being laid back and being particular are relatively neutral traits, for example. Being gregarious and being reserved are also more along those lines (though as a reserved person, it sometimes doesn’t feel that way). Generally, for those that seek to rise above their station (be it in terms of looks or money) pay a price for it and those that go low wonder what kind of better they might have done.
Perhaps I am merely universalizing from my own limited experiences and preferences far too much. But as, over time, I have moved further and further away from being surrounded by people that have limited relationship options that drive them to cast a wider net or fuel insecurities that they believe can be solved if they can just get that one hot girl, the more hollow that sounds. Somewhere along the lines I became a romantic optimist. Not only because I found someone, but because so many of my friends have. And there seems to be a lot more in the way of similarities of background and station than differences. And I think a lot of the “thinking outside the box” was really “wasting a lot of time.”
Men who pick for looks and youth can get a cruel wake-up a few years down the road. I’m reminded of my brother, who dumped his wife of 20+ years for a younger hottie, after the first one had given him six kids and generally been the type of “devoted,family-oriented, submissive, feminine” wife that Phi and other Gamesters lament don’t exist anymore.
Ten years after my brother married the younger hottie, she weighed 250 pounds, and they were living in seperate residences. The ex-wife remained slim and attractive, and, despite having six kids, remarried a much nicer person.
Comment by Maria — August 16, 2010 @ 2:20 pm
There’s an old saying about a criterion for proposal is if you will still love her when she looks like her mother. An alternate question is whether or not you will still love them if they gain 100 pounds. Or if they get sick (Newt Gingrich, I’m looking at you…).
Sometimes I think I’m a freak because, even if I were single, I don’t think I would be interested in a co-ed. I mean, I know people that married someone much younger than them and I don’t disapprove as they seem well-suited for one another. But that’s kind of the exception. And honestly, I really don’t think I’m a freak at all. Sure, all things being equal guys may prefer someone much younger, but all things are rarely equal and it’s harder to connect with someone from another generation, generally speaking. As always, though, it depends on the participants. But I consider age-fixation (rather than simply finding a match across the ropes) to be kind of problematic.
Comment by trumwill — August 16, 2010 @ 2:29 pm
The question for me is whether I’d still love her if she, ahem, decided to get on intimate terms with her razor . . .
Comment by Peter — August 16, 2010 @ 3:42 pm
I used to ask myself what I would do if the girl of my dreams had a thing for nail polish. I had accepted the likelihood (thankfully avoided) that she would wear toenail polish on a regular basis… but fingernail polish I was never sure of.
Comment by trumwill — August 16, 2010 @ 3:53 pm
Why do you dislike nail polish? I don’t wear it myself, but I hardly think of it as something crass and gross (I do dislike the darker colors though).
Comment by Maria — August 16, 2010 @ 4:17 pm
trumwill George O’Malley manages to hook up with the super-hot Izzy Stephens (Katherine Heigl’s character).
puff puff pass Truboogie puff puff pass
Am I the only one who thinks Katherine Heigl looks like the average chick in the mall? She is the aughts version of Jennifer Aniston or Jennifer Aniston 2.0 . Ok looking, but nothing to write home about.
Ellen Kathleen Pompeo is far better looking. She is the Kourtney Cox of Grey’s Anatomy.
Comment by chic noir — August 16, 2010 @ 5:36 pm
Maria, I don’t know where I got the intense dislike from. I’ve had it since a pretty young age. Something about the falseness of it. Other make-up tries to enhance or accentuate what is already there. Nail polish is simply ornamental. It sticks out. I don’t mind it as much if it’s expressly part of a costume (say a green-clad cheerleader squad wearing green nail polish or a witch costume with black nail polish), but beyond that it just looks wrong. {shrug}
Comment by trumwill — August 16, 2010 @ 5:54 pm
Chic, it’s actually something of a close call between Heigl and Pompeo. Pompeo’s attractiveness seems to have more personality, which I like, but Heigl’s is more sleek. I thought Aniston and Cox were a close call with one another, too.
Comment by trumwill — August 16, 2010 @ 5:56 pm
This corresponds fairly well with what a happily married successful relative told me: that what matters is getting along, compatibility etc. He pretty much scoffed at the standard PUA/Game dogma about looks/youth being vital in women.
Usually the economics question is one of a relatively poorer woman and more economically successful guy (the PUAs’ beloved “hypergamy”), but what are people’s opinions on the hypothetical opposite case: in an economically successful female scenario where dating in one’s economic range could too narrowing? E.g. where going for the same economic level could result in being stuck with older, unpleasant/arrogant guys (of course, perhaps that is unfair stereotyping).
On the flipside, I know of at least one case of attempted male golddigging (both the target and the golddigger were the same age)
Comment by Escapist — August 16, 2010 @ 11:01 pm
in an economically successful female scenario where dating in one’s economic range could too narrowing? E.g. where going for the same economic level could result in being stuck with older, unpleasant/arrogant guys (of course, perhaps that is unfair stereotyping).
Heh. When I met my husband I had a house and made more money than he did, and I DID reject a couple of “older, unpleasant/arrogant guys” for him.
Today he makes a lot more money than I do, but for a long time we were equal. I took some time off for children.
Comment by Maria — August 17, 2010 @ 9:48 am
Ah, common sense. You’re never going to become a cult figure in the man-o-sphere like that.
Comment by MQ — August 17, 2010 @ 11:30 pm
. . . generally been the type of “devoted,family-oriented, submissive, feminine” wife that Phi and other Gamesters lament . . .
People like Maria give blogging a bad name. She couldn’t bother herself with ten seconds worth of due diligence before writing the sentence above.
I find that a lot: people who hurl wild accusations just to see what sticks.
Comment by ? — August 18, 2010 @ 11:06 am
I once dated a woman significantly above my attractiveness level, although for some reason it took her a week to figure this out. Meanwhile, on two separate restaurant dates, we had guys approach our table and give her their phone numbers.
Having been there, I can tell you that this is a big disadvantage to punching above your weight class.
Comment by ? — August 18, 2010 @ 11:14 am
Okay Phi, I hu
mbly apologize for that. I confess to being unduly influenced by your blogroll links in making that statement, and assuming that you shared the opinions of those you link to.
Comment by Maria — August 19, 2010 @ 8:06 am
That said I actually enjoy reading your blog quite a lot. We’ll never agree on the Game crap but I do agree with you on certain other subjects.
Comment by Maria — August 19, 2010 @ 8:22 am