"Women value men first for their physical appearance, then for their utilities. Personality doesn't matter." Agree?

[LazerBean]

This is specifically directed at married men, but all can answer in the comments while including your relationship status.

This question is brought to you by two of those dudes who say that 80% of men are invisible and rejected by women. Even though you can't reject someone who is invisible to you. And even though according to the US census 50% of men ages 25 to 34 are living with a partner.

Please read all options carefully before voting.

I'm a married man who is rich and I agree

I'm a married man who isn't rich and I agree

I'm a man, not married but in a relationship. I agree

I'm a man, not married but in a relationship. I disagree

I'm a married man who is rich and I disagree

I'm a married man who is not rich and I disagree

Updates

1 y

by the way, to be in the top 20% income bracket you have to make over 100k per year. So don't vote as rich unless you make that much at least.

Updates

1 y

Maybe you should reread my answer again slowly, because it answers your question.

[Chazmatazz269]

That’s mostly true; not entirely accurate though. Of course personality matters once the most important factors are established. If a woman can choose between two equally attractive men with similar abilities to provide, but one is generally kinder or is more interesting, she’ll choose that one, of course. It gets tricky when they choose poorly because one was a bit nicer while the other was a bit better looking. It’s then that we’ll often hear or read “All men are dogs!” or “All men are trash!” kinda rhetoric. Suddenly it’s men’s fault that a woman gets her pick of dudes and she picks badly. Ell oh ell!
The dudes complaining are usually the ones that DIDN’T get chosen in such scenarios. They’re justifiably frustrated when women complain that “There are no good guys available!” immediately after being hurt by the handsome and charming player she chose over the nice guys who were right under her nose. Ell oh ell!
I dig that semantics jab about not being able to reject someone you can’t see. I laughed out loud at first, and then grumbled a bit. You’ve lead a life of privilege if you’ve never felt invisible though. There’s this thing some women do. When they sense that a fella likes them, but she doesn’t want to overtly hurt his feelings, she’ll kind of look through him. That way he gets the hint and she doesn’t have to say, “No, thank you.”. On the receiving end though, that’s no kindness. In fact, it’s doubly hurtful. You’re fortunate to not have experienced that. You’re a jerk if you HAVE experienced it but still jabbed at guys who share your experience.

[OlderAndWiser]

How DARE you try to use FACTS to prove that those butthurt boys are wrong!

[OlderAndWiser]

Thanks for MHO!

[jennyPuss]

married. disagree. looks are important to a degree but realize that they fade. "attractive enough" is all that matters for me. and money isn't important to me as long as my man does what makes him happy. i make money too so it's not like we're in the 1800's or whatever. personality is king. bouncing jokes off each other. feeling connection on the things that matter to us both. emotionally responding to the same things. being able to finish each other's sentences. enjoying the same hobbies. life couldn't be better.

[Apple1996]

Personality is the only thing that matters to me

[xJeremyx]

(I am a single student studying a diploma course, hoping to get out there and start building my bank account instead of relying on others and the meagre amount I sometimes earn)

It depends on who you look for. If you somehow find a girl who cares all about material things or thinks she "deserves" handsome dudes, you are asking for trouble, and it will be your fault due to your inobservance.

On the other hand, if you are really taking your time to get to know a woman, and you are giving her opportunities to show appreciation for you, then you will be able to tell what exactly about you is she appreciating, and why. Is it your wallet? Is it your looks? Is it your personality? You will be able to slowly pick those traits out. And if she does not even show appreciation, then nip the flower in the bud and find someone else.

However, if you somehow manage to find a woman who does not care about your income or how you look (as long as you dress decently), you are very fortunate. Lets be honest, finances and looks are all key factors in dating someone. But as long as you find a woman who prioritises your character first, I daresay you have struck a pot of gold. Hold on to her.

[ChiTown33]

I think everyone generally value people for thier appearance. I mean you generally see people before ever hearing them. But from then on it's up to the person. Some people put a lot of stock in visuals others not so much. Also I think situations play a lot into things. I had a lady friend that told me point blank that she didn't find me physically attractive when we first met. But she was married to this guy that was kind of a dirt bag. I won't go into details but he ended up in prison and she ended up raising thier 3 kids alone. She may have been a bad judge of character. But she was a good person. And she came onto me because I helped her in a bad situation. So I know she saw me emotionally as her lifeline. I guess what I'm saying is feelings aren't always clear and they make sense sometimes in a real f***ed up way because they're both logical and illogical. That's why you need to use both your brain and your heart.

If you want to hear the ending to my ladyfriend's story it has a happy ending. She met a divorcee who thinks the world of her, she married him, embarked on a new career and they're both living like a very happy Brady bunch (blended families) for the last 10 years.

[Noether]

No. None of them are unimportant, but personality is more important than money if that’s what “utility” is referring to here. Physical attraction and personality are both the most important, I wouldn’t date a man just for his personality if there were no chemistry, that would just be a friendship and nothing else, or potentially devolve into something very uncomfortable, nor someone who’s terrible to talk to and not fun to just spend time with, because I want a relationship, not a sperm-donor, and.


If he’s assertive, ambitious, funny and considerate as well as good looking and just happens to be broke when we meet because he’s a student or looking for work or tried something that wasn’t completely insane but things didn’t work out, that’s fine. If he’s smart, handsome, funny, masculine, driven and great to be around, yes, we’re going to have to make sure we have money before we have any children together so we can support them and I don’t want to have to do that all on my own or make him do all of it, so we need to agree on that point and work toward it, but I’m not turning down meeting in the first place and it doesn’t instantly disqualify him or make him repulsive the way being bad company/unkind or a physical turn-off would.

[Angelo75]

As woman age and become more mature, their priorities tend to shift.

At young they tend to be more focussed on appearance and while getting to a more mature age they'll look more for the personality.

I am not saying this is a stereotype. I'm just saying that a lot of times, this is the case. This is my "opinion" though, and not some scientifically proven fact. Ofcourse after writing this, there'll be a lot of people eager to correct me (as always with a forum). But we're all entitled to our opinion.

[HighValue]

Appearance is first of course because they see someone before getting to know them.

In my experience, income is the main reason for a woman losing interest almost instantly. Someone likes you, then they find out your income and suddenly are no longer interested. It is very obvious when that happens. Then when you have more income, suddenly more people are interested.

However, they people that never get asked out or their advances are never accepted, that isn't because of income. that is likely their appearance because they are getting rejected BEFORE the other person even knows their income. Same goes for the ones claiming to be rejected for size down there. She wouldn't know that either at first unless they just walk around with it hanging out.

The way you know if it is because of income is when someone is ALREADY interested in you and AFTER finding out your income they lose interest. That is when it is obvious and true.

[Avicenna]

Yeah, well, it's physical appearance that women do see first and often make assumptions about (we all do, really). I've never dated a woman who said it was something other than my appearance that attracted her. That said, they usually do their due diligence and look at other aspects of the guy too.

[Avicenna]

Indications of a good personality are usually needed to get past the physical attraction stage to make her want to spend her precious time with you.

[Sandeeppingping]

I'm 20 not 29, we just broke up like a week ago (Reason if it matters is she thinks I cheated so not money or whatever related) , I'm not making 100k but I have a plan that is already in motion to make more than that, I'd say dude who complain just need to take care of their looks and be more Expressive and that's it

[Sandeeppingping]

Dudes*, also if you're absolute ugly yea I'm sorry my guy game ova before you even started

[Sandeeppingping]

Absolutely** jeez

[KittyBox]

It depends on the woman, while some are brought up to view financial success as a major part of dating them, it doesn't mean they're always materialistic but they just value a partner than can support themselves and future cretins, /coughs, sorry I mean children.

[Sixgunsound]

You have the problem of explaining Hefners second half of his life, as well as Ivanka Trump, as well as why late teens earth 20’s women are still signing up to date DiCaprio, etc. Hypergamy is never going to go away, even if individuals exist who are able to overcome it.

[LazerBean]

Of course rich men will always be married, because there will always be gold diggers. My main intention is to bring attention to the fact that if the top 20% of rich and attractive men were the only ones who are not invisible to women, then basically no average Joes would be married. Which is not the case.

[Sixgunsound]

I don’t claim to be invisible, I worked damn hard not to be. And still do. Most younger guys just expect to be issued a Victoria’s Secret model for existing and don’t seem to realize you have to work for that. Same for the girls who expect to be issued an Abercrombie model when they don’t work for it.

[KrakenAttackin]

@LazerBean. In these awful times the average Joe's get worn out, post wall, cock carousel riders, who marry men as a retirement plan. I realize that only 4 years ago you were child with no historical perspective, but there are good reasons why marriage rates are at historical lows.

[LazerBean]

All those words and still no source. You never fail to be predictable.

[LazerBean]

@Sixgunsound very well put.

[KrakenAttackin]

@LazerBean. My experience is my source. I observe, learn, and form opinions. Can you say the same thing or do your opinions have to be provided for you?

[LazerBean]

As a non liberal, I form my opinions based on facts rather than feelings. You should try it. You will find that your life would be much easier once you stop allowing your feelings to govern it.

[VIVANT]

I’d say looks then personality on average, in fast settings but this is altered for friendships first where you had time to fall for the person.

outliers

personality then looks

personality then money

looks then money

money then personality

Money then looks

lastly, money

[exitseven]

I am married and disagree. I am not rich and not more than average looking. I have talents in a few things and my personality is still a work in progress. I was able to attract a really pretty and talented woman just by bing a good guy.

[Vegasrunner]

Attraction for women is a multi varried equation. Being handsome may get you in the door but a man must also be charming, have status, money, etc to attract women. This is why 80% are invisible because it's difficult to do all those things. However if you do have all those traits and land inside the 20% it becomes pretty easy to get women. currently I rotate 3-5 women, w/ each of them happy for the time they get. I guess by this questions metrics I would be considered rich.

[macjets007]

I think it's good looks, a GOOD JOB (good enough salary to facilitate what the girl wants to do lol) and personality. The golddigger thing is not true if she just wants a guy who has a nice professional job. I get it, women also want to have a family so it matters.

[dolemite89]

women are always attracted to personality and appearance if it’s just for sex but start placing more emphasis on utility and less on appearance and personality once they want marriage. A woman will marry a guy that’s ok looking and boring but has a good job then they’ll go cheat with some hot broke guy that’s actually fun and good in bed.

[TroyDT]

By the standards above, I am rich, I'm not married nor in a relationship currently, and I disagree.

[ericclayton]

I'm single but women like men for all kinds of reasons.

[Djaay]

Utility is first and foremost, physical attributions are a great package deal at most. The alignment of both together is a dreamscape on a woman's horizon of infidelity. till she succeeds. Personality confirms relations till her deed is met.

[Googlemyahoo]

So 50% of men are not which means your #s kind of prove the statement is kind of true.

[LazerBean]

That's 50% of men LIVING with a partner, which means more than 50% of men are in current relationships, and a minority at best of men are actually being "invisible"

[Googlemyahoo]

“And even though according to the US census 50% of men ages 25 to 34 are living with a partner.”

So the other 50% are a minority according to you cherry picking statistics. Wanna try again? Quick go googlemyahoo for something else

[LazerBean]

Let me reword my last comment since you didn't catch the answer to your question. Since people date for a while before moving in together, then obviously if 50% of men are living with a partner, then much more than 50% of men are in relationships with someone that they are not living with. Which obviously makes men in relationships the majority. So it's not cherry picking, it's actually just math.

[Googlemyahoo]

Where are you cherry picking these #s because when I look up census data it shows different numbers. Over 50% married close to 40% never married.

You can’t just make up the other portion of statistics by assuming its how you think. That’s not math.

[LazerBean]

I'm SO glad you asked.

Census stat:
www.census.gov/newsroom/stories/spouses-day.html

PEW stat that is consistent with census stat but also looks into non marriage relationships
www.pewresearch.org/.../

Since census data shows marriage in men has declined by about 4% since the PEW study was done, so even though unmarried cohabitation is on the rise I will give your side the benefit of the doubt and say that all men's relationships have declined by 4% as well. So let's bring the number of unmarried men, not currently any serious but looking for one up by 4% and that leaves us with 27%. Then I'll even throw in the 5% who didn't know or didn't want to answer, so that's 32%. I'll even add in the margin of error and make it 35%. 35% of the current 48% of unmarried men leaves only 17% of men who are unmarried and looking for a serious relationship.

[Googlemyahoo]

My side? You one of those triggered people who thinks that just because I disagree I must be the diametric opposite lol.

[Googlemyahoo]

by the way i looked up the same thing & you should’ve posted your source at the start to support your statement

The chart for mens marital status shows a steady decline from 1960 where roughly 70% of men were married to current where just over 50% are married.

In contrast the amount of men unmarried has steadily increased from 1960 where roughly 25% of men were single & now almost 40% are.

Why? Who knows. All those other numbers you made up are just that.

[LazerBean]

They're made up despite there being a credible source agreeing with me? Fascinating. And yet here you are without any sources to refute mine at all.

[Googlemyahoo]

The chart you’ve used clearly shows a trend in both single & married men. Its steadily declined since 1960 whereas the amount of single men has increased the same. If it continues there's going to be more single people then married. This will negatively affect the population.

I know you’re on a man hate incel crusade but I believe the issue is cost of living.

In 1960 you could work at a local hardware store have a nice house, four kids, multiple vehicles. Now you need two to three jobs just to barely get by with a bachelor apartment.

Nobody can afford anything. I think thats a major cause of the decline.

[LazerBean]

Actually I'm on a crusade to disprove the so-called 20/80 rule, which I have done with complete success.

It's interesting that you say nobody can afford a traditional lifestyle anymore, when my husband at 18 bought a house in a nice neighborhood and an extra car, without me having to work and all the while still being able to indulge all of our various hobbies. Maybe the place you live just sucks.

[KrakenAttackin]

The brutal reality is that the prettier a woman is the less personality she usually has.

[LazerBean]

The brutal reality is that if you had a credible source to give me, you would have. Instead you ghosted the last comment section. Per usual 😉

[KrakenAttackin]

@LazerBean. Just personal experience. Many very attractive women never had to develop a personality as things just magically happened for them. Also, when people fall all over themselves to cater to you, you really don't have to try very hard. As the old adage goes, "a life of only sunshine makes for a desert".

[LazerBean]

Yes I'm aware that it is always only your personal opinion, because like I said you never actually have a source for them.

[KrakenAttackin]

@LazerBean. "Sources". Your whole line on this board is "show sources, shoe sources". If liberals like you cared about facts, you wouldn't be liberals.

[LazerBean]

Lol if one is a liberal based on not showing stats and a conservative based on not showing stats, then that would make you the liberal and me the conservative. Which is absolutely correct. Good job once again outing yourself.

[KrakenAttackin]

@LazerBean. Once again you deflect and miss the point. You are too young with too little perspective to see the horrible changes in our society. To you all this debauchery is just "party time".

[LazerBean]

Deflecting would be making excuses as to why a person never has sources to back their opinion. So as always that would be the liberal (you).

[007kingifrit]

i don't think women put appearance first