Shovanistic vs. Personal Preference

OK, so this is somthing I’ve always wondered other people’s opinion on, and have thought about it for a while. Looks. Heres the question:

“Is is Shovanistic to decide you dont want to date someone because of thier looks?”

I’ll try to justify BOTH sides of my argument and let you all see which side YOU think is more acceptable.

YES - Over the years, men have grown used to the steriotypical woman that graces the covers of magazines and television. Women that are “hot” as it were percieved. Now, to say that meeting a person and deciding that they arent “hot” and letting that be a deciding factor over your relationship is very piggish. If the person would actually take the time to get to know the person and see the beauty that ISNT skin deep then maybe they would find more happiness than that found in physical attraction.

NO - Deciding that you’d rather date a skinny girl vs. a fat girl isnt Shovanistic. It’s personal preference. Looking at a person for the first time, ESPECIALLY in america you can often get a feeling for what kind of life the person lives. If they are fat (not chubby, but FAT) then there is a VERY strong possibility of two things. One, the person has a disability (which I feel sorry for and dont mean to offend) and the other, would be that they dont care enough about how THEY look or themselves and thus let go. Eating mounds of food to forget problems, or just not exersizing can show that the person doesnt take care of themselves, so how well would they perform as a “soul mate”? Remember, the body is a temple, treat it well.

So as you can see, both sides can be argued out pretty reasonably. I know alot of modern guys really ARE shovanistic, but bare in mind that some people may share my “NO” opinion.

What do YOU think?

It’s spelt chauvinistic.

I think it’s spelled “Chauvanistic”.

Edit: Fuck you, Urk.

The term you’re looking for isn’t chauvinistic. An example of chauvinism is a guy treating a woman like she’s below him just because she’s a woman.
The word you’re looking for is shallow. It’s natural to be drawn to someone if they are attractive, but a relationship cannot stand on looks alone; if you continue a relationship simply because the person you’re with is attractive, then yes you are indeed shallow.

It depends on whether you prolong your relationship, really. Both arguments are based on a first-sight impression, which tells absolutely nothing except the physical beauty of the person? Is it alright to make an immediate and irreversible judgement based on that one look? Of course not- but while it may or may not be an indication of how wise they are in taking care of their body, you really cannot truly say you know the person unless you go a bit further in your relationship than just a superficial glance.

ok, bypassing the wrong word, thank you EVERYONE for pointing it out.

In defense of the guy who prefers “attractive” girls, think about what I said. He’s saying that the girl who is fit, or takes care of her body may be more healthy and care about more factors than just their looks more than say, someone who lets themselves go. In THAT aspect, how is it bad to judge someone based on thier looks?

Yeah, Chauvinistic means like glorfying your gender. It doesn’t glorify my gender to date pretty girls only. :stuck_out_tongue:

Anyways, the truth of the matter, to me, is that while both genders seek attractive people of the opposite sex, you can’t really choose who seeks you. Both males and females are attracted to certain actions and character traits, so regardless of what you look like, if you can pull these things off, you can likely attract the opposite sex. There are, of course, exceptions to everything; however, I think that my take on the whole thing covers the broadest demographic :stuck_out_tongue:

In any case, both are perfectly fine. Why is going for someone for their beauty shallow, when going after their character is not? :stuck_out_tongue: Both reasons are just as valid. In choosing a life’s partner, I think everything is just as important. But, if you can really truly love someone for one aspect of their character, then maybe that’s all you need. That’s why, as a rule, I never ask my girlfriends or dates why they like me. It’s not only unfair and awkward, but why should it matter? Their definition of love is different from mine, and as long as they can love me, that’s all that matters. And, before you say that one cannot love another on looks, I’ve seen it happen ALL THE TIME, and the relationships have even gone WELL. :stuck_out_tongue: So, while I don’t do that, I don’t consider it shallow or wrong.

EDIT: BTW, I think the argument of ‘personal preference’ is really stupid. Who fucking prefers ugly, boring people? I prefer someone who’s got it all, lol! But it’s not gonna fucking happen :stuck_out_tongue: So I don’t sweat it.

The answer doesn’t matter. If liking girls based on their attractiveness appeals to you, then whether you’re called “chauvinistic” shouldn’t change anything. It’s just a word. What matters is that you go for looks, not that some random word may or may not describe your behavior.

The question you’re really asking is, “Is it ‘bad’ to like a girl for being pretty?” There’s no real answer to that question.

<i>Healthy</i> or <i>plain</i>? It’s alright to make a judgement based on health…

What does “alright” mean?

People have different views on what they consider beauty. But regardless, being attractive to someone makes it more likely you’ll get approached. I mean, a lot of people wouldn’t go up to someone who looks disheveled and dirty would they? Personal apparence is the first thing you notice, it’s not like you can judge a person’s complete personality just by looking at them, and most people won’t spend the time to do that if they’re not physically attracted to the person.

Why do you turn this into another men are awful debate? I know you probably meant it works both ways, but the way you worded it makes it sound like only men can be this shallow, or “chauvanistic” if you will. If you think women are any less shallow than we are, think again. As Bill Mahr would say, it seems you’ve bought into the “pussification” of America.

Anyway, to answer your question, no of course I don’t think it is shallow or chauvanistic or whatever. Everyone looks for the best possible candidate, and the easiest place to start looking is with what you see. Anyone who thinks it is shallow is probably just on the bottom rung of the food chain and has given up hope that he or she will find the mate of their dreams, so they take what they can get. And they are bitter and spiteful toward the rest who didn’t have to settle.

Either that or they have a fetish for fat, three-lipped quadriplegics. Which I guess is cool. They need love too.

I dont believe “I” turned this into a men are awful debate. I meerely gave TWO sides to an argument that has been floating in my head for a while. However, for the most part, instead of debating the question, people have been saying “omg omg omg, you said the wrong word! hahaha, and you spelled it wrong, you are stoopid!” And the ones who DID respond to the question (at least some of them) seem to have misread it into thinking that SOMEHOW I actually took a side in this.

I’ll defend each side, I personally wont place myself in either catagory, but rather want to see what YOU guys think. This will help keep me from being biased about the topic and still get solid input from both sides.

If you make an argument about something, regardless of whether you support it or are playing devil’s advocate or WHATEVER, you can expect people to refute it. So what are you complaining about? :stuck_out_tongue: You wanted opinion, and now you’re getting it. :stuck_out_tongue:

Yes, because that’s a rationalization.

And I don’t have much to add, I saw this thread late. :stuck_out_tongue:

I wasn’t complaining about your spelling of words and grammar or anything like that. I’m complaining that you took what seemed to be a simple question of preference and filtered it through your own preconceptions about which gender can be more chauvanistic/shallow than the other. If you want to ask a question and simply want people to answer it, don’t inject it with your own personal opinions like these. Or do inject them, and when people like me bring it up, why don’t you just address the issue instead of going all psycho on me for something others are doing.

And if you can’t spell words properly or use correct grammar, it’s not our fault if we want to correct you.

“Beauty is in the eye of the beholder.” Some people just fall into a range that is more often seen to be attractive than not, while others may be called ugly by a number, but still be beautiful to certain people.

You’re missing the point by spouting these inane, banal truisms. Nobody is going to disagree with you that some people hold different ideals of beauty. Why does everybody have to take a thread like this, and god forbid I’m praising Izlude but he made a thread that could be slightly controversial, and sandpaper it down into a harmless reiteration of the things our mothers told us as a child to make us decent members of society?

Here’s why this adds nothing: the question here is, does it make a person shallow to enter into a relationship solely on the basis of physical attraction? Okay, let’s say I’m looking at a girl, and you’re looking at a girl. I think she’s attractive, you think she isn’t. Okay great, that’s not the question. The question is, does it make me a worse person to want to date her solely based on my physical attraction, and does it make you a worse person to not want to date her solely based on your physical revulsion? Answer that next time, and add to your post count meaningfully.

Perhaps clarification is in order.
If I were single and looking, and met an attractive woman who turned out to be dumb as a post, then I’d nicely but definately break it off. Regardless of how you look, if you’re an idiot you’re not my type. To have a relationship there has to be trust, and you cannot trust an idiot. If you remain in such a relationship just because your mate is attractive, then you are shallow in my opinion.

Now, that being said, looks are also an important factor, though it’s hard to say if it outweighs smarts; it just depends on the person. All people judge one another on first appearances. If you say you don’t, you’re either lying or simply don’t realize it. As someone pointed out earlier, a nasty-looking person is less likely to be approached than an attractive person, and if you meet a dirty, smelly person, you’re more likely to mentally classify them as a pig before taking them out to dinner. Even if they turn out to be very smart, it won’t make you any less embarassed to be seen with them in public.

Most guys will approach a woman based on looks alone, that’s obvious. What women look for in a man is probably very similar.

Having been lucky enough to find an attractive woman who is probably smarter than I, I can say that I’m definately not on the bottom of the food chain, or spiteful or whatever. We all have our own opinions, which was the point of this post, so being an ass (zeppelin) really does it no good.

Do you really think that trust lies in smarts? A socially intelligent person is more capable of misusing your trust than someone who isn’t. Hell, just a plain more-intelligent person is likely to be more capable. For that reason, I don’t think smarts are a factor to base trust upon. Trust is important, but you can only gauge it by letting them show you their loyalty. Intelligence has nothing to do with trust. The only thing that has to do with trust is showing that you can be trusted. :stuck_out_tongue: