Eye protocol

[Malthus]

I'm with Yi, fugliness is not a function of whether you have banged someone or not.

I'm not suggesting it is.

[Malthus]

I can find something beautiful in anyone.

I hope you don't use knives in your search. 

[Caliga]

I can find something beautiful in anyone.

I hope you don't use knives in your search. 

No, but maybe I should.  Ohhhhhhhhh Raz.... 

[Richard Hakluyt]

It's the single chaps that are knocking the girls' looks 

I think we staid married folk are more worried about non-surface features, like......does she make good pies?......will she get annoyed by the amount of time I spend playing computer games? and so on

[Caliga]

It's the single chaps that are knocking the girls' looks 

I think we staid married folk are more worried about non-surface features, like......does she make good pies?......will she get annoyed by the amount of time I spend playing computer games? and so on

It's always that way.

My brother has insanely high standards as well... and is unsurprisingly perpetually single.

[garbon]

The challenge of striving for perfection vs. settling.

[Valmy]

It's the single chaps that are knocking the girls' looks 

I think we staid married folk are more worried about non-surface features, like......does she make good pies?......will she get annoyed by the amount of time I spend playing computer games? and so on

It's all true

Though I found myself making a checklist of personality traits and interests and caring less about just phyiscal appearance the more women I went out with.

[Valmy]

The challenge of striving for perfection vs. settling.

Or rather finding what will really make you happy versus chasing what turns out really doesn't matter that much.

[BuddhaRhubarb]

Dude she likes you.

[Valmy]

Dude she likes you.

First one is in a relationship...the Latina we know nothing about besides her hotness and the fact he has a self picture of her.

[garbon]

Or rather finding what will really make you happy versus chasing what turns out really doesn't matter that much.

Whatever makes it work for you.

[Valmy]

Whatever makes it work for you.

It does, thanks

[Admiral Yi]

Not exactly. It is a matter of defining what you are basing "fugly" and "attractive" on.

If your range is based on a solid diet of supermodels and famous actresses, the "fugliest" one of which is likely to be better-looking than anyone you actually know in real life, this skews the perception in a way not conducive to future contentment.

When you say that skews the perception that means there is unskewed, unbiased perception, which gets us back to my previous statement that if the best you can do is fugly you have to call her something other than fugly (because that is "conducive to future contentment").  We're talking about two seperate tests.  There's the settling that  mentioned and then there's sensory pleasure.  When I talk about pretty/fugly I'm referring to the second.

[Malthus]

Not exactly. It is a matter of defining what you are basing "fugly" and "attractive" on.

If your range is based on a solid diet of supermodels and famous actresses, the "fugliest" one of which is likely to be better-looking than anyone you actually know in real life, this skews the perception in a way not conducive to future contentment.

When you say that skews the perception that means there is unskewed, unbiased perception, which gets us back to my previous statement that if the best you can do is fugly you have to call her something other than fugly (because that is "conducive to future contentment").  We're talking about two seperate tests.  There's the settling that  mentioned and then there's sensory pleasure.  When I talk about pretty/fugly I'm referring to the second.

Well, sure, there is no totally objective standard for fugly - there is at best a range. Basing that range on some unobtainable ideal based on a bevy of movie stars strikes me as being self-defeating - if one cannot get "sensory pleasure" from someone who isn't a movie star or a supermodel, quite frankly I feel sorry for them - that's not a realistic measure.

Also, the notion that "the best you can do is fugly you have to call her something other than fugly " implies that there is some sort of objective standard of "fugliness" that you know but that others are simply in denial about - I can assure you this is not the case: I'm not faking it when I state that lots of women I know are 'not fugly', I really believe it - looking at them gives me pleasure; I assume many others are the same ... if looking at such women gives you no pleasure, if you are forced to "settle" with women you find "fugly", then I repeat: that sucks.

[Malthus]

The challenge of striving for perfection vs. settling.

Don't worry, there's a Pottery Barn waiting for you.