Attracted to Rejection

[lastwish]

So yes, we can assign values to people. We do it everyday.

My argument is not that people don't assign values. They do, but subjective ones. Therefore, it is not about obtaining an universal sense of attractiveness (because it doesn't exist), but about finding someone who is compatible with you (or working toward the qualities your lover/crush/ex find attractive).

First of all I never said there are invaluable people. Ofcourse someone is valuable in their own special way, it's just a question of how much and how useful. Sure they will be a good match for someone else, but how many someone elses will they be good for is the real question. The more attractive qualities they have the better their chances will be.

How can you arrive at accurate statistics on those? Magazines and online polls? Such statistics are based on its specific readers and by no mean, are they universal opinions. Plus, they are often asked with vaguely worded questions like "What do you find most attractive in a person? a) Looks b) personality c) intelligence". All of these categories (as I have mentioned before) are too broad.

And what makes you think you will be able to attract a successful lawyer or doctor? What makes you think a successful lawyer or doctor would be attracted to you? What have you got to offer them that they can't get anywhere else?

Ok, saying that I would prefer marrying a lawyer or doctor over an actor is a mistake. I would have to meet them in person, date them for quite awhile to realize if I am compatible with them.

However, you have raised a possible error (whether intentionally or by mistake)that people make which is that people sometimes readily assume that someone isn't compatible with them (again, due to pigeonholing) before they spend adequant time dating them.

I think people should just relax and find someone who can recognize their value; not what the magazine poll you saw last week's sense of attractiveness. After all, it is precisely the reason that this kind of recognition (that each partner find the most value in each other) that makes a union so special.

[Mish]

My argument is not that people don't assign values. They do, but subjective ones.

Can you please describe these values which are so subjective that they can't be looked at objectively?

How can you arrive at accurate statistics on those? Magazines and online polls?

No. Real cases, real people.

Ok, saying that I would prefer marrying a lawyer or doctor over an actor is a mistake. I would have to meet them in person, date them for quite awhile to realize if I am compatible with them.

The question is not what would make them attractive to you, but what would make you attractive to them. Why would a successful lawyer or doctor be attracted to you? What have you got on offer for them that no other girl has? They are successful, they can attract lots of others, why should they date you?

[Neowings]

Just because he doesn't know about ADHD doesn't mean his is dumb. That's just knowledge you know it or you don't. Nothing to do with how intelligent he is.

[IndiReloaded]

And what makes you think you will be able to attract a successful lawyer or doctor? What makes you think a successful lawyer or doctor would be attracted to you? What have you got to offer them that they can't get anywhere else?

I think I agree with Lastwish for the most part. I certainly wouldn't be interested in someone like an actor, especially a wildly successful one. But that would be more do to with my liking for a quiet, private existence.

It is true that successful professionals tend to look for similar traits in their partners. This is why you see doctors marrying other doctors, lawyers, executives, etc, so often. In my own case, its because we share similar values, lifestyle, intellectual, family needs.

Of course, its more complicated than that. For example, I wouldn't be all that interested in a doctor or lawyer whose intellect was limited to *only* their profession. For those of you who aren't yet in the workplace, there are an awful lot of those. Paper smart but world-dumb and absolutely boring to speak with. That is a personal turn-off for me, I don't care how 'successful' they are in their microcosm. I like to interact with people who can think broader than their own specialization and see where they 'fit' within a larger context.

I think its basically what Vash describes as 'water finds its own level'. Its not impossible for two very dissimilar individuals to find common ground, its just less likely they can find a long term fit. For those with very dissimilar education or social backgrounds (i.e. wealthy vs. poor families), there will need to be higher overlap in other things to make their relationship a success.

[Doc Durian]

Is there anything I can do to make this easier for myself?

Relax, let go... take a chance. Don't over analyze every situation or the people in them.

I'm attracted to basketcases... I know it, accept it, and generally... pretty cool with it. No use fighting it. The quirks, flaws, and unique attributes get me all worked up. I'm forever turning away from those women who most men gawk at.

But the problem I've found is that it's my adorable basketcase who takes issue why I'm with her.

She wants to overanalyze what a guy like me is doing with a fruitloop like her. I like the prophecies such as "you'll have left me in 3 months, anyway" which then blows out to 6,12,18 etc...

She just needs to let go, and learn tantric monkey business moves with me.

[Mish]

This is why you see doctors marrying other doctors, lawyers, executives, etc, so often. In my own case, its because we share similar values, lifestyle, intellectual, family needs.

Of course, its more complicated than that. For example, I wouldn't be all that interested in a doctor or lawyer whose intellect was limited to *only* their profession. For those of you who aren't yet in the workplace, there are an awful lot of those. Paper smart but world-dumb and absolutely boring to speak with. That is a personal turn-off for me, I don't care how 'successful' they are in their microcosm. I like to interact with people who can think broader than their own specialization and see where they 'fit' within a larger context.

Indi, all of the above sound like very objective values. You want someone with similar lifestyle (i.e. not a bad lifestyle), intellectual (i.e. not stupid), broad intellect (i.e. can make interesting, engaging conversation, not socially awkward) etc... In which case, what points do you agree with lastwish over mine?

Lastwish argues that objective values are not important in the attraction. I.e. Someone who is not very smart, dresses badly, can't make conversation and has an odor slightly reminiscent of rotten eggs need not worry or do anything about it, because someone out there will find them attractive for just the way they are on a deeply subjective level.

[IndiReloaded]

Indi, all of the above sound like very objective values. You want someone with similar lifestyle (i.e. not a bad lifestyle), intellectual (i.e. not stupid), broad intellect (i.e. can make interesting, engaging conversation, not socially awkward) etc... In which case, what points do you agree with lastwish over mine?

I think LW could equally argue mine are subjective criteria, unless I am requesting IQ points or subscriptions to Economist and Foreign Affairs (which I don't, not usually).

All I was trying to agree with is that its difficult to quantify something like attraction. There are too many darn exceptions to say that a store clerk will have nothing to attract a doctor. Less likely? Perhaps. But, then again, many two-career couples have plenty of difficulties. There was a time when men put high value on women who enjoyed raising kids & taking care of the home. It had *value* to them. In fact, many very successful men (for whom a second income isn't required) still look for those traits, if in an intelligent package. Ask Cam. Or Bill Gates. Or Barack Obama.

[Mish]

I think LW could equally argue mine are subjective criteria, unless I am requesting IQ points or subscriptions to Economist and Foreign Affairs (which I don't, not usually).

IQ points is going to an extreme. Objective means a quality can be found as attractive quality by a substantial majority and a number of people can replicate it. Qualities like good sense of humour, good eating habits, good social intelligence will all fall under objective and measurable. Subjective will fall under someone liking the way you cry or laugh in a way that can't be replicated by anyone else, yes subjective may be important as well but not any more important than a wide variety of objective qualities which can be worked on and improved.

All I was trying to agree with is that its difficult to quantify something like attraction. There are too many darn exceptions to say that a store clerk will have nothing to attract a doctor. Less likely? Perhaps.

Less and more likely are exactly what is being offered by my perspective. I'm not talking in absolutes. Ofcourse, someone who hit every branch of ugly and stupid tree on the way down could find a partner, it's just the chances they will find one are significantly less than if the tried to work on themselves.

I simply don't buy into 'don't self develop, you will magically discover someone who loves your many unattractive qualities that you could've made into attractive' way of thinking. It's like saying, don't go to school, the right knowledge will find you when you need it.

[Rollerderby]

Just because he doesn't know about ADHD doesn't mean his is dumb. That's just knowledge you know it or you don't. Nothing to do with how intelligent he is.

No, no it's not like I asked him 'do you know what adhd is?' and he was like 'no'. He was just rambling on about stuff (not just adhd, that was just an example) and then after like 20 minutes of me listening thinking, he has no clue what he's talking about he came right out and admitted it. I know it might be similar to guys how they don't ask for directions when they don't know where they're going, but it just kind of turned me off how dumb he sounded

It has nothing to do with trivia.

[Rollerderby]

Mish it seems your league theory has just been disproven

[url]http://www.loveforum.net/off-topic-discussion/29941-internet-male-syndrome.html[/url]

Although, perhaps this only applies to males. Women are destined to be the object of pursuit, and can only bat their eyelashes in attempt to win the heart of yon knight ;-)

[Mish]

Mish it seems your league theory has just been disproven

[url]http://www.loveforum.net/off-topic-discussion/29941-internet-male-syndrome.html[/url]

Although, perhaps this only applies to males. Women are destined to be the object of pursuit, and can only bat their eyelashes in attempt to win the heart of yon knight ;-)

Are you by any chance calling me unattractive and desperate there Rollerderby?


(Takes out his little black book, blows out the dust and readies the pen)

[Rollerderby]

Are you by any chance calling me unattractive and desperate there Rollerderby?


(Takes out his little black book, blows out the dust and readies the pen)

No no, not in the slightest! I just was referencing it because of what you said about leagues at the beginning of this post, and the mini-debate that has thus ensued.

[Mish]

No no, not in the slightest! I just was referencing it because of what you said about leagues at the beginning of this post, and the mini-debate that has thus ensued.

That's alright, just messing with ya