The pickiness paradox

  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Feb 21, 2009 4:59 AM GMT
    Hello everyone,

    I think there's a prejudice that attractive people are pickier* than the ones who are less attractive, but I think it's quite the opposite: the less attractive you are, the more exclusive you become. Let me explain it and see if you agree.

    First of all, a preference is not picky on its own, it depends on the group on which the choice is made, for example: John lives in a country full of brunette men. Conveniently, he prefers them. John's preference is not picky there. John then moves to a country where most men are blond. John still prefers brunettes. John is now picky.

    A preference that was once inclusive became exclusive just by moving to a different location. Besides location, the person who's picking can also make a preference more or less picky.

    For example: Paul is very attractive, while Carl is not so attractive. Initially they have the same basic requirement: "I'm looking for a gay man". With this same preference, they both end up with the same group. Now the move on to the second basic requirement: "He must find me attractive". Now Paul ends up with a larger group. Carl has a small group to chose on.

    Coming from the less attractive one, this requirement of consensuality is way more exclusive. He is the picky one here, not because he made an exorbitant, fussy requirement, but because this requirement came from him. The attractive one, even after a million other requirements, may still end up with a larger group. One who spends 90 bucks of his 100 dollar account if more prodigal than one who spends 100K dollars of his multi-billion dollar fortune.

    So, when I judge my pickiness, I don't consider just my preferences, but who am I to make them. I just wish I weren't so picky...



    *In the sense of being more exclusive, not necessarily fussy
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Feb 21, 2009 5:14 AM GMT
    funny pictures
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Feb 21, 2009 5:48 AM GMT
    Psychology 101?icon_rolleyes.gif
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Feb 21, 2009 5:50 AM GMT
    That post made little sense to me. But I like your torso. I'd hit it
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Feb 21, 2009 6:01 AM GMT
    nobody's ugly after two oclock in the morning
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Feb 21, 2009 6:06 AM GMT
    dakuk saidnobody's ugly after two oclock in the morning


    Last call dramatically improves everyone's attractiveness.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Feb 21, 2009 6:53 AM GMT


    Well, that was interesting, but I'd have to say that this ""He must find me attractive" is pretty well a constant in the formation of a lover-relationship.

    This means to me that "He is the picky one here, not because he made an exorbitant, fussy requirement, but because this requirement came from him."
    doesn't really apply. How does anyone start a relationship when one finds the other unattractive?

    icon_wink.gif -Doug
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Feb 21, 2009 7:17 AM GMT
    This thread is a paradox, wrapped in an enigma, intertwined in an anomaly, served with a side of french fries.

    In summary..

    "Not-so-attractive" guys have standards too.

    icon_lol.gif
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Feb 21, 2009 7:20 AM GMT
    bachian saidHello everyone,

    I think there's a prejudice that attractive people are pickier* than the ones who are less attractive, but I think it's quite the opposite: the less attractive you are, the more exclusive you become. Let me explain it and see if you agree.

    First of all, a preference is not picky on its own, it depends on the group on which the choice is made, for example: John lives in a country full of brunette men. Conveniently, he prefers them. John's preference is not picky there. John then moves to a country where most men are blond. John still prefers brunettes. John is now picky.

    A preference that was once inclusive became exclusive just by moving to a different location. Besides location, the person who's picking can also make a preference more or less picky.

    For example: Paul is very attractive, while Carl is not so attractive. Initially they have the same basic requirement: "I'm looking for a gay man". With this same preference, they both end up with the same group. Now the move on to the second basic requirement: "He must find me attractive". Now Paul ends up with a larger group. Carl has a small group to chose on.

    Coming from the less attractive one, this requirement of consensuality is way more exclusive. He is the picky one here, not because he made an exorbitant, fussy requirement, but because this requirement came from him. The attractive one, even after a million other requirements, may still end up with a larger group. One who spends 90 bucks of his 100 dollar account if more prodigal than one who spends 100K dollars of his multi-billion dollar fortune.

    So, when I judge my pickiness, I don't consider just my preferences, but who am I to make them. I just wish I weren't so picky...



    *In the sense of being more exclusive, not necessarily fussy



    STOP trying to reason your pickiness and just give whoever a chance. If there is a spark, it works; if not, move on.
  • mv03

    Posts: 201

    Feb 21, 2009 7:28 AM GMT
    GuerrillaSodomite said
    dakuk saidnobody's ugly after two oclock in the morning


    Last call dramatically improves everyone's attractiveness.


    Not when the bar lights come on....You gotta get out of there before that. icon_eek.gif
  • allatonce

    Posts: 904

    Feb 21, 2009 7:45 AM GMT
    TheIStrat saidThat post made little sense to me. But I like your torso. I'd hit it


    LOL. I understand THAT line of thinking at least.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Feb 21, 2009 5:03 PM GMT
    meninlove said

    Well, that was interesting, but I'd have to say that this ""He must find me attractive" is pretty well a constant in the formation of a lover-relationship.

    This means to me that "He is the picky one here, not because he made an exorbitant, fussy requirement, but because this requirement came from him."
    doesn't really apply. How does anyone start a relationship when one finds the other unattractive?

    icon_wink.gif -Doug


    Yes... I agree... but it's a requirement like any other... I think it's important to consider as such because it defines how exclusive are gonna be the preferences that follow it.

    I have a friend who has very "high" standards, and he still manages to be less exclusive than I am. How can that be if my preferences are way more down to earth? This is why I'm aiming for 187lbs: I wanna be inclusive! icon_smile.gif
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Feb 21, 2009 5:37 PM GMT
    Everyone has standards and some people just have crazy high ones.

    The "unattractive" people even have standards and some of theirs are even worse then a regular attractive person's.

    Some people just need to get unstuck from themselves and live.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Feb 21, 2009 5:40 PM GMT
    Guy101 said

    The "unattractive" people even have standards and some of theirs are even worse then a regular attractive person's.


    This is proof that the law of the universe is one of irony...
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Feb 21, 2009 5:51 PM GMT
    i always thought that "unattractive" ppl were around to make attractive ppl look better by comparison on days the the pretty person is having an "off" day
    icon_razz.gif
  • TallGWMvballe...

    Posts: 1925

    Feb 21, 2009 7:03 PM GMT
    The OP is very hard to follow, but I get that you are adding more variables in the mix.
    My two cents is that it doesn't matter how attractive you are or think you are,
    different people have different characteristics and standards of what they like.... period.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Feb 21, 2009 8:13 PM GMT
    Guy101 saidEveryone has standards and some people just have crazy high ones.

    The "unattractive" people even have standards and some of theirs are even worse then a regular attractive person's.

    Some people just need to get unstuck from themselves and live.


    The point I'm trying to make follows the analogy of the spender: spending 100K dollars isn't too much if you have many billions, but spending 8 bucks is a lot if you just have 10... actually, anything is big spending if you just have 10 bucks.

    If someone doesn't want to be a spender... he must spend less, or get richer.
  • joggerva

    Posts: 731

    Feb 21, 2009 9:18 PM GMT
    bachian saidFor example: Paul is very attractive, while Carl is not so attractive. Initially they have the same basic requirement: "I'm looking for a gay man". With this same preference, they both end up with the same group. Now the move on to the second basic requirement: "He must find me attractive". Now Paul ends up with a larger group. Carl has a small group to chose on.

    Coming from the less attractive one, this requirement of consensuality is way more exclusive. He is the picky one here, not because he made an exorbitant, fussy requirement, but because this requirement came from him.

    *In the sense of being more exclusive, not necessarily fussy


    I think it would be wise for you to not call this "pickiness", since your verbal linguistics leave some of us feeling that you are simply trying to rationalize your own pickiness.

    Essentially, it sounds like you are saying that less attractive people are more "picky" because they search for a mate in a smaller population (i.e. those who are attracted to the less attractive). However, I would argue that the "requirement of consensuality" is one that (as meninlove explained) is universal (i.e. it does not, as you assert, "come from him" but rather from the laws of the universe).

    So, in your very 1-dimensional example, Carl is not more picky. Carl is probably open to dating Paul. Paul is probably not interested in Carl due to his lesser attractiveness. Paul is more picky.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Feb 21, 2009 9:35 PM GMT
    Being picky....That's interesting..I read that when a woman selects a partner, she actually just looks for someone that will be good to breed with,to have strong healthy off spring, it's an innate instinct apparently.

    If you just assume that this is correct. Then what underlying instinct would we look for, when it comes to finding a partner, since two men can't procreate?
  • styrgan

    Posts: 2017

    Feb 21, 2009 9:40 PM GMT
    bachian said
    Guy101 said

    Some people just need to get unstuck from themselves and live.


    The point I'm trying to make follows the analogy of the spender: spending 100K dollars isn't too much if you have many billions, but spending 8 bucks is a lot if you just have 10... actually, anything is big spending if you just have 10 bucks.

    If someone doesn't want to be a spender... he must spend less, or get richer.


    icon_eek.gif

    This makes no sense though.

    Preferences are not analogous to currency that can be exchanged for relationships. Love is extremely dynamic, and you do not simply look at a checklist when you are deciding to pursue a relationship with someone. If you do, you are socially retarded. Long-term compatability (and short-term interest) depends on far more than what characteristics people have. They depend on how those characteristics interact with each other.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Feb 22, 2009 5:48 AM GMT
    joggerva saidEssentially, it sounds like you are saying that less attractive people are more "picky" because they search for a mate in a smaller population (i.e. those who are attracted to the less attractive). However, I would argue that the "requirement of consensuality" is one that (as meninlove explained) is universal (i.e. it does not, as you assert, "come from him" but rather from the laws of the universe).


    Ok, I agree it's universal, but it filters like any other requirement. A filter you may not control, but determines how exclusive your choices are going to be.

    joggerva saidSo, in your very 1-dimensional example, Carl is not more picky. Carl is probably open to dating Paul. Paul is probably not interested in Carl due to his lesser attractiveness. Paul is more picky.


    Is Paul picky because of one rejection? The numbers are on his side: even after many requirements, the numbers are so favorable for him that he still manages to reject less.

    joggerva saidI think it would be wise for you to not call this "pickiness", since your verbal linguistics leave some of us feeling that you are simply trying to rationalize your own pickiness.


    Do you think I would go this far if it weren't personal? icon_cool.gif

    When mutual attraction is rare, I start wondering if my standards are too high. But they aren't... (since when are average weight guys rare?) If they are so scarce in my "selection group", I would be probably less exclusive if this group were larger. Shyness, location, unpopularity... many things diminish this group and make my preferences more exclusive. I'm doing everything within my means to increase it, but it takes a hell of a patience...
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Feb 22, 2009 6:23 AM GMT
    styrgan said
    This makes no sense though.

    Preferences are not analogous to currency that can be exchanged for relationships. Love is extremely dynamic, and you do not simply look at a checklist when you are deciding to pursue a relationship with someone. If you do, you are socially retarded. Long-term compatability (and short-term interest) depends on far more than what characteristics people have. They depend on how those characteristics interact with each other.


    I used wealth in the analogy in comparison to attractiveness or popularity. I don't say it buys you a good relationship, but gives you more power to find one. I wouldn't stand my narcissist, blood-sucking ex-bf if it were easy to find someone else.

    I agree with you on the nature of love, it's not a check-list, and it's very important how our characteristics interact, but would you care about literature or quantum physics if you were worried about your next meal?
  • styrgan

    Posts: 2017

    Feb 22, 2009 1:54 PM GMT
    bachian said
    styrgan said
    This makes no sense though.

    Preferences are not analogous to currency that can be exchanged for relationships. Love is extremely dynamic, and you do not simply look at a checklist when you are deciding to pursue a relationship with someone. If you do, you are socially retarded. Long-term compatability (and short-term interest) depends on far more than what characteristics people have. They depend on how those characteristics interact with each other.


    I used wealth in the analogy in comparison to attractiveness or popularity. I don't say it buys you a good relationship, but gives you more power to find one. I wouldn't stand my narcissist, blood-sucking ex-bf if it were easy to find someone else.


    The other reason curency is not a good metaphor is that there is no exchange. You can date one guy. You can date five guys. You can put all your eggs in one losing basket or not pay until you're convinced it's what you want.

    If you settle for one that treats you like crap, then you have in effect "paid" and you can't now complain that the world is an unfair place.
  • joggerva

    Posts: 731

    Feb 22, 2009 8:03 PM GMT
    bachian said
    joggerva saidSo, in your very 1-dimensional example, Carl is not more picky. Carl is probably open to dating Paul. Paul is probably not interested in Carl due to his lesser attractiveness. Paul is more picky.


    Is Paul picky because of one rejection? The numbers are on his side: even after many requirements, the numbers are so favorable for him that he still manages to reject less.

    joggerva saidI think it would be wise for you to not call this "pickiness", since your verbal linguistics leave some of us feeling that you are simply trying to rationalize your own pickiness.


    Do you think I would go this far if it weren't personal? icon_cool.gif


    Ick. "Verbal linguistics" - I hate when I'm thinking of a phrase that could be worded two ways, and I mess up and choose one word from each. I meant either "verbal acrobatics" or "linguistic acrobatics". "Verbal linguistics" is rather redundant and didn't make the point I meant to make. D'oh!

    Anyway. icon_smile.gif

    My point was that I would not define "pickiness" as having a small group of potential mates. I would define it as choosing to limit one's group of potential mates. By the way, I'm not saying pickiness is necessarily a bad thing, but it can certainly be taken too far.

    I never said Paul was picky just for excluding Carl - I said he was more picky than Carl (I wouldn't label someone as picky for one exclusion - I'd have to see how often Paul rejects potential mates and by what criteria). What I meant was that what kept Paul and Carl apart was the decision by Paul to exclude Carl.
  • dionysus

    Posts: 420

    Feb 22, 2009 8:10 PM GMT
    mmmm. dont agree icon_smile.gif