Shallow or Personal Preference

I know everyone has a personal preference when it comes to physical attributes - tall, short, bald, skinny, buff, etc. We all have an image of the man or woman we would be attracted to.


So you are communicating with someone online who has not posted a photoand you seemed to be really compatible and the communication was great and you had much in common. Then, you share your photo with the match and they drop youlike a hot potato. No more communication, no thanks but no thanks, nothing.


I readalot of comments like this on this forum. And the obvious reason is that the match did not like how you looked, you didn't fit with the image of the man or woman they're attracted to.


What about matches that you communicate well with and then they give you their grocery list of what they want physically -their ideal match has to weigh this much, has this color hair, is this or that height, has no fat on them. LOL.


I get that we all obviously want someone with who we are physically attracted to especially when looking for someone you're going to see each day for the rest of your life. You need to feel some physical chemistry, they need to turn you on and not turn you off because God forbid, their nose is big, they have thinning hair, too many pimples, a few extra pounds, etc.


But, at what point do you think thatit is shallow to choose physical image over someone who could be a great match? Or would you just chalkthis up to personal preference and say that he or she is not your type? Would you compromise on certain physical attributes because the person has great qualities. For example,would yoube happy with the man who has a big nose because you love his sense of humor and you both have a love for, I don't know, needlepoint? Would you be happy with the woman who has a few extra pounds because you both have similar interests and dreams?

LOL.I have to say that your comment cracked me up! I'm with you on not wanting men that are too 'pretty'. I find different types of men attractive. I have my preference but I'm also open-minded. However, I'm not into men that look like GQ models orhave celebrity looks. Yeah, they're great to look at but they're just not for me. I'm attractive but I'm not glossy and I don't want to be with glossy men.


I had one match choose 'attractive by current standards' as his must have. Seriously, if you want Angelina Jolie, you're dreaming!!

I think everyone has some bottom of the line standards...of which depending on the person some can be high and others not high enough (if they settle for abuse etc.).


For me the lack of pictures bothers me because it's not a complete impression of even the "online" persona so could be 180 degrees from the real in person one on personality too. I rather have some idea so I can get the best overall picture of the match. It's just one of those things that someone has to fall in that standard of what you can accept. A match that you find repulsive is not likely to work unless you see something in them that changes your mind.


I rarely communicate with matches without photos because of the "unknown"...I want to know going in that I'm not going to run from how they look. For the very same reason i put my own photo on my eharmony profile.


There will always be tradeoffs...personality always wins over looks to me but at the same time those individuals met my minimum in attractiveness. It's a complete package deal...you either have to accept the whole or move on as even if someone wants to change...there are limits and it is voluntary on their part.


To me shallow would be the definition if the standards were so high that an average person would not be acceptable on looks or some other aspect most would perceive as "picky". Preference would be when you know a match must have a certain trait, value or lack of so you simply get along better.

Looks fade and eventually that HOT woman will become average. Hell, Richard Gere got tired of Cindy Crawford. Get the point? WE are all shallow to some extent. Some women will only date men that are 6'0 above, even though there's a great guy right in front of them.


Bottom line is, our shallowness/prejudice could be the reason we are single and on eharmony and looking for love?


The grass may be greener, but remember, some one has to maintain it.

I totally agree with you here. I was just talking to a co-worker about this today. Looks fade and in 10 years age will have taken a toll on our looks and our body. Men are known to leavetheir wivesfor someone prettier and younger. I also think that looks don't really mean much unless there's a bond that keeps you together. Look at celebs like Halle Berry. She's absolutely gorgeous but Eric Benet left her. Brad Pitt left Jennifer Aniston and she's gorgeous by 'current standards'. Just because you're beautiful, with a great figure doesn't automatically mean you get to fall in love and live happily ever after. You hear all the time about celebs wanting to get married and settle down and fall in love and have kids. They're in the same boat we are!


I agree with everyone that we do need to feel a physical attraction to our partner. I certainly want to be physically attracted to my partner. But, I think sometimes peopleallow looksto take precedence over a great personality and we dismiss someone who has a great personality because they don't fit our looks criteria.


I've communicated with men who have no pics simply because their profile seemed interesting and I wanted to get to know them. Who knows what their reasons are for not posting a photo? I'm not going to assume anything about their motives for not posting one. I know what I want physically in a man, but I'm willing to lower my standards if someone has great qualities. For example, I'm into bald men or thinning hair. But, if they're attractive in other ways, I'll give it a chance. But, that's just me.


I like reading everyone's views!

I just dont know when people will wake up and realize that you may have already missed your soul mate by passing the person's profile up because their photo doesnt quite meet your supermodel standards. A few extra pounds on a woman is not and should not be a deal breaker, expecially when the man is no James Bond either. Lets face it, most people are average. That is really good enough for the lives we live and we need to wake up about it because the soul connection is what's up!!

I just had a situation today that is new to me, and I wonder if anyone else here has experienced it. First, let me explain that I have only a few matches per week, and due to the common sensitivity about closed=rejected my policy now is to initiate communication with each match and let her close me if she doesn't like me. A couple of days ago I recieved a match who is only 5'0 and was tempted to close her due to height difference (I'm 5'10), but didn't because I'm trying to be more openminded about that on here than I have been in the past. I sent her 1st questions, and tonight I found her replies and the questions she sent me. One of her questions is describe what I find physically attractive - the very first time any match has asked me this. What puts me on my guard is that the match who asked me this has NO PHOTO. I have a photo posted, so she can see me. I answered her question as honestly as I could, getting very specific about some things (and no, I didn't specify measurements). This question really made me think about the whole shallowness vs. preference debate. Any comments, or speculation on this match's motives for hiding her face but asking me what l like for looks?