Jump to content

How important is physical attraction in a relationship?


Recommended Posts

There's a fine line between love and hate.


Familiarity breeds contempt.


I don't think physical attraction can somehow grow if there wasn't anything there in the first place.

Thankfully physical attraction means different things to different people.


Is this more about 'love at first sight' and people that are in relationships for the sake of it?

Mick Mac Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Keef Wrote:

> --------------------------------------------------

> -----

> > The whole "type" thing is bollocks.

>

> I'm not sure - I like girls who look like my Mum.


Caligula Mac?

sexually attraction and desire is very important in a relationship and whilst it is not the most important thing, I have always seen it as the glue that binds the other stuff together. Fortunately the things that people find attractive and sexy are diverse (I have a hopeless weakness for glasses, nice hands and forearms, oh and slightly crooked bottom teeth...). But despite the importance of finding someone attractive, I have never ended a relationship because of not finding someone attractive, its usually that they are selfish or just not funny so it must be the other attributes which are more fundamental.

waynetta Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Of course physical attraction is important. Why

> else would she be with him ?

>

> http://blog.mtvasia.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/12

> /2067054.jpg



Lol.....you cannot see the large wad of money in his pocket and his wallet full of no limit credit cards!

thats sex appeal!

katie1997 Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Who was it that said 'all women should have an OFF

> switch'?

>

> ( oh, might have been my ex...) (6)



I say That's harsh.... but no mention of the ON switch Katie... did he not know how to turn you :-$n


What a bounder

Brendan Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> It's not as important as big knockers.



I say


Quite agree


big brass ones to make it easier for the milkman or other tradesmen to announce their arrival at your door

Very funny MrT! Incidentally I once heard a male gigolo explain that in order to 'perform' with his lady clients of all ages and physical appearance, he would always find at least one attractive thing upon which to focus.... nice eyes, nice hair, the shape of her thigh and so on. It goes to show that there is beauty in everyone if you are prepared to look. So, physical attraction is important in a relationship, but problems can arise if the other person doesn't look hard enough to see it.
Physical attraction comes in all, shape and sizes but I have to agree with Lol it is the money you find in the celebrities world rich old men attract younger women very few go out with a women there own age I personally would not date a man shorter than myself as I feel is if I am forcing him.

Terry Thomas esq Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> I say That's harsh.... but no mention of the ON

> switch Katie... did he not know how to turn you

> :-$n

>

> What a bounder


Tel, there's a lot of bounders out there, or so I hear, I'm sure you could teach them a thing or two :)

katie1997 Wrote:

>

> Tel, there's a lot of bounders out there, or so I

> hear, I'm sure you could teach them a thing or two

> :)


My Dear Katie


As much as I could teach them about etiquete and impressing the ladies, I would prefer to teach you a few things


Bottle of Champage during your first lesson my dear? of course you will

From the Beeb:


Professor Robin Dunbar of Liverpool University spent much of the latter half of the 1990s studying the hidden evolutionary signals contained in Lonely Hearts advertisements.


Dunbar found that the vast majority of words used by people to describe themselves in ads could be lumped into five different categories.


He asked 200 university students to rate the appeal of ads containing different categories of words. When Dunbar analysed the results, he found that men and women attached very different levels of importance to the five categories:


Men's preferences

1. Attractiveness

1. Commitment

3. Social Skills

4. Resources

4. Sexiness


Women's preferences

1. Commitment

2. Social Skills

3. Resources

4. Attractiveness

5. Sexiness


Far from being conditioned to regard these things as important, Dunbar argued that men and women had evolved these preferences over millions of years of evolution. These were crucial qualities that enhanced the fitness of children, and, lest we forget, children are the key to the survival of our species.


What hidden messages do we send the opposite sex?


Pregnancy and breast-feeding place great stress on a mother, so females make the biggest investment in reproduction. This is why women are choosier about their partners than men, with 20-something women being the choosiest of all.


This big parental investment also explains why women seek males who are willing to stick around and provide for children


However, when the desire for reproduction is taken out of the equation, preferences change drastically. Dunbar has shown that lesbians were three times less likely to seek resources than heterosexual women.


For males, time spent providing for a pregnant partner could be better spent fathering other children with other women. This may explain why men place such a high premium on attractiveness.


Attractiveness is a rough indicator of age, and in women, age is a good indicator of fertility. After her late 20s, a woman's fertility steadily declines, and so does her value on the dating market.


However, asked to choose one woman as a long-term partner, all three groups chose the beautiful woman regardless of what age they thought she was.


"They are saying: 'I'd rather risk a relationship with an older woman who is not going to give me as many children but is very beautiful, than a woman who is more fecund but whose children will be plainer," says Fieldman.


The theory is based on the notion that a beautiful woman is more likely to bear beautiful offspring and that those offspring will be more successful than plainer offspring.


So I guess that whether physical attraction is important in a relationship depends entirely on what you want out of the relationship.


Without a doubt it's got to be important in the 'lust' stage, but it probably gets a lower priority in the 'attraction' and 'attachment' phases


If your overall priorities are resources or commitment, then you may not need to go through the 'lust' stage at all - thus negating the necessity for physical attraction.

dita-on-tees Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> I think my relationships would be easier if I had

> a mute switch.



Most men have these inbuilt. Its when you can listen to what your wife says and watch sport at the same time, nodding occaisionally.

Mick Mac Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> dita-on-tees Wrote:

> --------------------------------------------------

> -----

> > I think my relationships would be easier if I

> had

> > a mute switch.

>

>

> Most men have these inbuilt. Its when you can

> listen to what your wife says and watch sport at

> the same time, nodding occaisionally.



So you men can multi-task after all!

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Latest Discussions

    • I don’t think Reform will withstand the heat of any election.  Finding enough people to stand will be bad enough. Finding credible ones quite a bid tougher  I think yes this government is lacking in a long term plan and has not had a good first year. Today the least.   but the speed with which this was dealt with is a notable shift compared to last 14 years where months would drag by and we would constantly be told to draw a line under  if Labour called an election tomorrow, there is not a single party that could present a better alternative with any credibility. And that’s a low bar Reform are dangerous lunatics but more worrying is the descent of the Tories into the same swamp i also worry that England voters have contracted some melodrama virus after the Tories where we had 5 PMs in almost as many years  it’s ok for governments to be unpopular without needing to have an election every 1-2 years      
    • Well, I made £50 out of it and Alice owes me another bullseye, so I had a good day Clearly the thread has moved on, but just a final few words on Rayner (from me, at least). If she hadn't gone like this (with a chance to revive her career at some point in the future) there's plenty of other stuff loaded up and ready to be fired at her about the motivation, finances and machinations of her move down South. It's not pretty reading. Tawdry doesn't come close. I was born in Ashton Hospital and grew up in Tameside, I've got a lot of friends and family who weren't as lucky as me and didn't make it out, some close to her constituency party, and there's been a lot of bad feeling around 'Our Ange' for a long time. My favourite quote was: 'She should fuck off back to Stockport.' And that was from a party member. The writing was on the wall for her. Moving from Ashton (majority c6.5k, large Pakistani minority, but predominantly white working class and targeted by both the Independent Alliance and Reform) to Hove (majority c20k, neither of these issues with the electorate) was a pretty cynical move, and she's fucked it royally. 'The Honourable Member for Hove and Portslade' will be sleeping a lot easier in their bed tonight. This thread was never supposed to about Labour bashing, and I'm not sure it is. It's definitely descended into 'Whataboutery', and that seems to be the problem, in my mind at least, with British politics. It's playground stuff, he said/she said, blame-game bollocks. Watch PMQs and ask yourself if you'd accept this sort of behaviour amongst toddlers, let alone in an elected parliament. One thing that does stand out is the opposition to Reform across the board, and yet we seem to be sleepwalking towards a likely scenario where Farage could head up a minority Reform government. I've 'followed' politics since the late Seventies - mainly because the BBC News came on right after 'Roobard and Custard' or 'The Magic Roundabout' - and I can't remember an era where both major parties are so bereft of leadership, direction or ideas. There's a certain irony that we'll all be getting a test text on Sunday to warn us of an impending 'National Emergency'. Seems quite prescient.
    • But not old enough to remember the highest unemployment rate, inflation and interest rates in history in the early eighties under the Tories? A rather selective memory you have. There has never been a four-day week: it was a three-day week imposed by the Conservative government under the Blasted Heath.
    • I see that there was a government consultation started in July 2024, a response, and then a revision to the National Planning Policy Framework, and then to the Green Belt guidance in February 2025, https://www.gov.uk/guidance/green-belt .  It includes the updates but doesn't give the nescient much clue of what was materially changed. There will probably be some good, and less good, summaries to be found. 
Home
Events
Sign In

Sign In



Or sign in with one of these services

Search
×
    Search In
×
×
  • Create New...