Why do guys watch porn when they have a gf? And why does it upset gf? :O

[searock]

Nah, she's very attractive .

[KingZ]

Pics or I don't believe you, obviously.

[searock]

Not gonna happen XD.

[Yet another guy]

If by the part in bold you don't mean that they would only "choose" a generally attractive person, then I agree. But then, most people would not "choose" a generally unattractive person, by definition: not only the "generally attractive" ones.

I certainly don't mean that the attractive ones would only choose generally attractive ones. They choose the one they are personally most attracted to out of the choises they have. It's possible, but not likely that the most attractive person to them is someone whom is only found attractive by very few or no other people. If it is, I consider that person lucky (unless (s)he happens to have unusual preferences as well and doesn't find the popular person attractive at all). Sure, even the unattractive people would prefer to choose someone attractive as well but it doesn't really matter unless the attractive people find them attractive as well... which is unlikely by definition.

Unless your definition of "attractive" really is so vast as "a person whom more than one other person would date" - in that case, ok, you're right. It's just a matter of definitions I guess : )

It's not very constructive to divide people into groups based on the general attractiveness. I just did that to spell out the cases where your argument (if SO is not the most attractive person to you, the relationship isn't healthy) seems the silliest. I consider general attractiveness as a comparable scalar like quality. The more people find you attractive, the more attractive you are generally. People have a decent chance to be considered dateworthy by people who are on the same level of general attractiveness. They have a high chance to be considered dateworthy by people who are less attractive generally and a low chance of being considered dateworthy by those who are more attractive generally.

Why would it be so? After all, the definition of general attractiveness is only dependent on the number of people who find you attractive and not on who those people are. Well, the generally very attractive people have a lot to choose from. They are considered attractive by a lot of people. Why would they bother dating someone of average attractiveness if they have a chance to date someone more attractive? Sure, again, it's possible that they find someone who is less attractive generally to be more attractive to themselves. It's just less likely.

Considering all this, remember that there's just one person who is most attractive to you. It's very unlikely that the person also happens to find you the most attractive person out of everybody else. Unless both of you happen to be the most generally attractive person of your genders. Even then it's far from certain. And think about the most attractive person in general. The person, whom is considered the most attractive by many people. All those people (except at most one) are doomed to be in an unhealthy relationship. Unless the most attractive person happens to be polyamorous and happens to like all of those who consider him/her the most attractive person. In reality though, that number of the people is probably way too much for one person to handle.

I've bolded those two bits because I think it all comes down to the fact that, for me, I know that I will never reach the highest level of attraction to somebody unless I know a LOT about them.

Me neither.

[searock]

People have a decent chance to be considered dateworthy by people who are on the same level of general attractiveness. They have a high chance to be considered dateworthy by people who are less attractive generally and a low chance of being considered dateworthy by those who are more attractive generally.

I really don't agree with any of that. My experience doesn't, either.

Considering all this, remember that there's just one person who is most attractive to you. It's very unlikely that the person also happens to find you the most attractive person out of everybody else. Unless both of you happen to be the most generally attractive person of your genders. Even then it's far from certain. And think about the most attractive person in general. The person, whom is considered the most attractive by many people. All those people (except at most one) are doomed to be in an unhealthy relationship. Unless the most attractive person happens to be polyamorous and happens to like all of those who consider him/her the most attractive person. In reality though, that number of the people is probably way too much for one person to handle.

Again, you consider attractiveness to be something external to the subject, while for me it all comes from within. A person is not attractive per se. It is somebody else who is attracted to that person. There is no such thing as "the most attractive person". And looks play only a partial role in attractiveness. As I said, sexiness (or attractiveness if you will) is looks+personality (by personality I also mean all the things I said in my previous post, the way one moves and talks and looks at people etc). So there is no way that attractiveness can be a "scalar quantity" - unless you use the dateworthiness definition, which you apparently use but then don't think is useful yourself.

Anyway, I personally don't care if out there somewhere in the world there exists a man whom, if I were to know better, I would find more attractive than the guy I currently find most attractive. Why would I care?! I'm happy with what I have. Porn gives variety alright, I understand that, variety is good. But even if I see a really hot guy in a porn video, I'll say "wow he's hot", perhaps hotter than my bf, but I'd still be more attracted to my bf than I would be to that guy. Why? Because I know my bf very well, and I'm in love with him, and I don't know the guy in the video, and I could never be as attracted to a guy I don't know (as hot as he may be) as I am to my bf.

Me neither.

I see you agree then.

[Yet another guy]

Again, you consider attractiveness to be something external to the subject

I'm not sure what you mean by that. If you mean that I don't consider attractiveness being something that is defined by the subjects own preference, you're mistaken. If you are just saying that I don't define attractiveness as the attraction the subject feels based on his/hers perception of what the object of attraction is really like, you're starting to get the idea. That is correct.

There is no such thing as "the most attractive person".

By my definition of attractiveness, there is.

And looks play only a partial role in attractiveness.

I agree. I bet most people do too.

So there is no way that attractiveness can be a "scalar quantity" - unless you use the dateworthiness definition, which you apparently use but then don't think is useful yourself.

Attractiveness, as it is between two people, can't be. But the "general attractiveness" - or "objective attractiveness" as you call it - is. If you remember, I defined it as the number of people who would consider dating you (if you were single). You can think of it as a percentage or if it's not significant, as a cardinal number. I can't remember saying that I think it isn't useful. I thought it was quite handy for explaining just why it would be silly to think that ones partner should always be the most attractive person to the subject in question. Or to expect your partner to find you the most attractive person.

Anyway, I personally don't care if out there somewhere in the world there exists a man whom, if I were to know better, I would fine more attractive than the guy I currently find most attractive. Why would I care?!

Exactly There's always someone more attractive. Who cares? If both parties of the relationship find each other attractive* and love each other, the relationship is healthy in my books. In fact, I believe that it would be healthy for them to accept the fact that they aren't the most attractive people (even to each other) and not be insecure about it.

*How attractive is enough? In my opintion, enough for the partner to fall in love. And enough to arouse the partner.

I see you agree then.

Yes. What I quoted there is exactly how I feel.

[searock]

I'm not sure what you mean by that. If you mean that I don't consider attractiveness being something that is defined by the subjects own preference, you're mistaken. If you are just saying that I don't define attractiveness as the attraction the subject feels based on his/hers perception of what the object of attraction is really like, you're starting to get the idea. That is correct.

I believe that attraction can only be defined as something that the subject feels - it's not a quality of the object. As I said, if we want a handy definition of "general attractiveness" the only way we can do so is using the "dateworthy" concept. As I said, to me a "generally attractive" person is one that more than half of the persons who know him/her (and who are attracted to people of the same gender as him/her) would date. A "generally unattractive" person is someone who only one, or no, person would date. All the others are "average-looking". Your definition may be slightly different, but it's still based on the "dateworthy" concept. Which in the end is something pertinent to the subject - not the object: a person would not be very or little or "averagely" dateworthy, if there weren't subjects who consider him/her so.

Attractiveness, as it is between two people, can't be. But the "general attractiveness" - or "objective attractiveness" as you call it - is. If you remember, I defined it as the number of people who would consider dating you (if you were single). You can think of it as a percentage or if it's not significant, as a cardinal number. I can't remember saying that I think it isn't useful. I thought it was quite handy for explaining just why it would be silly to think that ones partner should always be the most attractive person to the subject in question. Or to expect your partner to find you the most attractive person.

As I mentioned in the paragraph above, I agree with the first part ("general attractiveness" being defined by "dateworthiness"). But I don't agree with your "implications". Even if some other guys were considered dateworthy by lots of people (more people than the ones who consider my guy dateworthy), I don't see how this could influence the attraction I feel towards my bf. I obviously feel that he is the most dateworthy - otherwise I wouldn't be dating him.

Exactly There's always someone more attractive. Who cares? If both parties of the relationship find each other attractive* and love each other, the relationship is healthy in my books. In fact, I believe that it would be healthy for them to accept the fact that they aren't the most attractive people (even to each other) and not be insecure about it.

I think that everyone is pretty much aware that they aren't the "most attractive people in general" (and I don't believe there to be just two people who play those roles on earth, since our definition of general attractiveness is based on social, local groups which have obviously very different tastes from one part of the world to the other). But as for attraction per se, I also believe that if two people are dating each other, they should find the other person to be the one that they are (currently) most attracted to. That's why I said that I don't care whether in the world there is some guy who I would be even more attracted to, if I got to know him better. When I'm dating a guy, I find him to be the most attractive person (TO ME: I am not talking about general attractiveness, which has little to do with this) on the planet - that's all.

Anyway my original point was that I think that in a healthy relationship a guy should naturally think about his gf, as well as other things, while he masturbates. Why? Because he finds her to be one of the most arousing things on the planet, so she should naturally come to mind in such an occasion. We can agree to disagree : ).

[IndiReloaded]

Attractive = posts w/a point in under 10 words.

[KingZ]

[url]http://cl.ly/3z2t2y260l0d20402w0C[/url]

Yep. I'm in Iceland, being better than everyone else.

[Yet another guy]

Your definition may be slightly different, but it's still based on the "dateworthy" concept. Which in the end is something pertinent to the subject - not the object: a person would not be very or little or "averagely" dateworthy, if there weren't subjects who consider him/her so.

Exactly.

Even if some other guys were considered dateworthy by lots of people (more people than the ones who consider my guy dateworthy), I don't see how this could influence the attraction I feel towards my bf.

Of course it doesn't influence you But from your bf's point of view it did make a difference in the likelihood that you'd choose to date him. Before he learned that you'd prefer him to the more popular guys.
Also, from your point of view, if he wasn't considered dateworthy by many girls (as opposed to the popular guys), there would be better chance for him to date you because he wouldn't have had as many to choose from.
It doesn't change the probabiliites because of influence (which is something it doesn't have). Let's say that x% of women find your bf dateworthy. Now, we can choose any woman from his local circle (everybody around him, not just friends. That would skew the distribution obviously) whose attraction towards him is unknown. The likelihood that a woman we choose would consider him dateworthy is x%. Thet x% defines his popularity. Back when he didn't know if you liked him, from his point of view, the likelihood that you would consider dating him was proportionate to his popularity. Again to emphasize, his popularity has no influence in how dateworthy you do consider him.

I think that everyone is pretty much aware that they aren't the "most attractive people in general" (and I don't believe there to be just two people who play those roles on earth, since our definition of general attractiveness is based on social, local groups which have obviously very different tastes from one part of the world to the other).

Sure there is the most attractive person in general. It's the one who is considered dateworthy by the highest number of people. But I agree that the percentage of how many people consider you dateworthy among your own local group is more important to anyone. Even more important is how high percentage of those who you find attractive yourself (among the people in your local group) find you dateworthy. Well, not to you specifically. You're in a healthy relationship so there's no reason to give a crap about what others think.

[searock]

But from your bf's point of view it did make a difference in the likelihood that you'd choose to date him. Before he learned that you'd prefer him to the more popular guys.
Also, from your point of view, if he wasn't considered dateworthy by many girls (as opposed to the popular guys), there would be better chance for him to date you because he wouldn't have had as many to choose from.

Even assuming this is true (which I don't think it is)... so what? We are talking about people who are already into relationships...

Sure there is the most attractive person in general. It's the one who is considered dateworthy by the highest number of people. But I agree that the percentage of how many people consider you dateworthy among your own local group is more important to anyone.

Lol so according to your definition people who are known by more people have more chances to be the "most attractive in general". Is this in any way useful to this discussion!?

Even more important is how high percentage of those who you find attractive yourself (among the people in your local group) find you dateworthy. Well, not to you specifically. You're in a healthy relationship so there's no reason to give a crap about what others think.

Exactly, all of this is entirely irrelevant to this topic XD. We are talking about people who are already into a relationship.

As for my views on the actual topic, see the last paragraph of my previous post.

[asdfg789]

@Yet another guy and searock

after many pages of text, neither of you are any closer to convincing the other and nobody else is reading.
to save some disk space for LF, maybe it is a better idea for 2 of you to make a date to watch some porn together and then tell us your conclusion there after ?

[vashti]

hello, asdfg789.

[Yet another guy]

Lol so according to your definition people who are known by more people have more chances to be the "most attractive in general" Is this in any way useful to this discussion!?

Well, if we go by your definition of attractiveness, that's certainly true. If nobody knows you, you'll never be considered attractive. The more people know you and the better they do, the more chances you'll have to be considered the most attractive person they know.

It's just my response to what you said about there not being two people who are the most generally attractive people. You tell me if it has anything to do with the rest of the discussion

so what?

all of this is entirely irrelevant to this topic XD

It all has to do with your claim that "unless you find your partner the most attractive person, your relationship is unhealthy" which I disagree with, but then again we've already established that our definitions of attractiveness are different. At this point I'm just desperately trying to explain what I mean by the words and statements I use, but I can't seem to get the meaning across.

Sure, it's irrelevant to the topic of porn and masturbation in a relationship, but I find the original topic even sillier than the one between us.

@asdfg789
We already reached the conclusion in posts 100-101 I believe. Now I'm just trying to correct her apprehension of what I've said. I guess I'm not very good at communicating

[asdfg789]

hello, asdfg789.

yes, my favourite, hot nurse ? you want to watch some porn with me ??