There is nothing LESS shallow than judging potential mates on their looks

Wolfsouls · 2016-12-09T22:18:00+00:00

The question shouldn't be whether it's morally wrong or shallow, but whether it's romantic. The biological realities of human mating are anything but romantic, on either side of the equation. It's just annoying when one sex tries to pretend their sexual imperative is more "romantic" or "pure" than the other.

sublimemongrel · 2016-12-09T22:41:33+00:00

If people wanted to be valued solely for their genetics or reproductive potential/success they wouldn't think it's shallow. But most people generally don't want that. They want to be loved for who they are as a person (personality, character AND looks, i.e., the whole package) not whether they exemplify good genetic material. Nobody really only wants to be loved for only one thing, truth be told.

BiggerDthanYou · 2016-12-09T22:09:34+00:00

Isn't being shallow just only caring about looks and nothing else?

Like being together with a crazy bitch or a boring cunt just because she's hot and not having any interest in her feelings, interests, opinions and history. She's only an attractive accessories and fucktoy.

If you value someone as a human being you aren't shallow for caring about their looks as well. They may be an attractive accessory and fucktoy, but they are also another human being and a person with its own mind.

PoopInMyBottom · 2016-12-09T23:26:52+00:00

Looks fade. Judging a long-term partner on looks is moronic.

future_space_boobs · 2016-12-09T22:14:32+00:00

Genetics don't mean shit anymore. I can dye my hair convincingly, go tanning, prevent wrinkles with a retinoid, and completely change my face with makeup for quite cheap. Doesn't say a damn thing about how genetically fit or fertile I am, and women have been doing that in various forms for milennia.

And-- and this is important-- with our current beauty climate, most men will prefer a woman who has done all of what I listed above to a beautiful woman in her natural state. They might not want to know it (they prefer no makeup, after all) but that's what they go for.

rulenumber303 · 2016-12-10T01:23:59+00:00

"the idea that this is some how "shallow" or "morally wrong" or whatever weird quasi christian spiritual and moral nonsense people attach to it is bizarre."

I agree. It isn't shallow to want aspects of one's environment (social... physical... sexual...) to be beautiful and appealing, both visually and in terms of behavior and how they treat you. It isn't shallow to want to have a beautiful partner, a gracious house, a car that isn't boxy and steers like a cow.

However, when we deal with expressions of these desires we aren't just dealing with the basic desires, We're dealing with how people rationalise and project and manipulate in order to protect their egos and not have to face hard truths. And a lot of that stuff can get very shallow and unpleasant.

For example, all the fuss around the way people advertise their less-than-stellar selves on dating apps. You've got the folks who lose their tempers because some fat chick with a pretty face and big tits wants a tall guy... these folks do that because they can't stand to think that someone who they don't want also doesn't want them or doesn't want the sort of guy they could attract. That's shallow, attacking strangers from behind the shelter of anonymity because of the strangers' unsettling levels of hopefulness that cost at most a few seconds to swipe away and forget about.

Another example of shallowness as the result of dealing poorly with the desire for beauty is a recent poster to /r/relationships who was upset that his pretty wife who he described as "not the sharpest tool in the shed" has swallowed fat acceptance whole and without reservations, put on 50 pounds and now he's having trouble talking to her about it and is complaining that he didn't sign up for this. Well actually he did sign up for this. He married a dumbass, life is gonna be full of having to explain important stuff very carefully or things go to hell. His desire for beauty was handled badly by him and led to a very shallow appreciation of what the woman he was marrying is really going to be like to build a life with. He dismissed her intelligence as an issue but still continued to act like he was owed a smart wife regarding issues that count to him. That shows a very shallow appreciation of the fact that other people exist in their own right and not just as conveniences for oneself.

moodybela · 2016-12-09T21:47:59+00:00

Appeal to nature fallacy. Then there's nothing wrong with me raping a woman by force. It's just evolution at work.

wub1234 · 2016-12-09T22:01:57+00:00

We attach so much significance to human behaviour, myself included, but we're just smart animals who can stand on two legs and talk. We question what our instincts tell us to do, whereas other animals simply do it. We call this 'civilisation'.

One thing I will say is that many things we continue to select each other on actually have little survival value in the existing society, but obviously they are inbuilt by now.

super-commenting · 2016-12-09T22:26:09+00:00

But looks aren't the same as fertility and genetic fitness. Looks are a heuristic our monkey brains use to approximate fertility and genetic fitness. And sometimes this approximation is very very wrong. There are pretty women who happen to be carrying multiple recessive genetic diseases.

ProbablyBelievesIt · 2016-12-09T23:18:58+00:00

The most conventionally attractive woman I was ever in a relationship with, had BPD. Some women with BPD are aware, and can adapt. She was a violent sociopath with suicidal tendencies.

She was also a practical joker. Gaslighting was never dull.

I'm not convinced staying with her, just because of her looks, would have demonstrated any kind of depth on my part.

Ascimator · 2016-12-09T22:25:29+00:00

Of course the word "shallow" wouldn't even apply if you only view romance in the context of raw biology.

haikufun · 2016-12-09T22:48:33+00:00

It is shallow, but realistic people should have no problem being shallow.

mtndewlover · 2016-12-10T01:20:15+00:00

As you've formulated your CMV, you almost certainly need to change your mind. Everything you've said is correct, but you ignore the fact that your genes affect your behavior as well as your appearance. The popular concept of shallow is someone who strongly prioritizes looks over behavior/capability (both genetically based and extremely relevant when it comes to fitness), i.e. someone who neglects the total genetic picture and judges only on a partial one. I suppose this is also why we would cause a gold-digger shallow, even if she's with an ugly man. Or why women who fetishize a certain type of man are thought shallow. It's about a failure to appreciate the full genetic picture. This will sometimes be a liability, and sometimes an advantage, or else the propensity wouldn't have evolved.

StickItInTheToilet · 2016-12-10T02:00:52+00:00

Everyone judges on looks. Everyone.

How do you know someone is the gender of your choice otherwise? And most of us want someone who looks good to us. We don't want someone who has pus dribbling out of open sores everywhere or has a single eye in the centre of their forehead. We go on visual cues.

Men should want women with small waists and wide hips. Signalling fertility and an easier time giving birth. Men (of their best fertile age range, under 40) who are attracted to slim-hipped 14 year old girls or 60-year-old women are not the men who will successfully send their progeny out onto the earth.

Women generally want taller men - because taller men look more menacing to other men and taller men generally have longer penises (which means the sperm has a better chance of reaching the cervix).

But - if we only factored in looks, then we'd all be a lot dumber. People also select for intelligence, kindness, generosity - things that make us smarter, more well-rounded human beings.

It would be shallow just to select on looks alone because they're only one part of the puzzle.

midnightvulpine · 2016-12-10T16:45:04+00:00

Nothing spiritual about it. Judging by looks is primal, not deep. There is nothing deep in thinking a woman is great because she has big breasts. Or clear skin. Or pretty eyes. All of them are superficial and actual connections to personal health and generic viability as a mother without risk factors for genetic ailments is questionable. You can't reliably look at someone and tell by facial structure that they are more healthy than someone else, except for those who are obviously unhealthy or otherwise openly display their bad habits and vices.

i_have_a_semicolon · 2016-12-10T16:58:48+00:00

Shallow means not deep, superficial. It's what you can gleam immediately from a person with your eyes and nose. You can size up a persons looks in a matter of seconds and if you make a judgement from it, that is shallow. Genetic fitness is not the only thing that matters about the survival of human species. Our species progress has hinged on many other things such as power, collaboration, intelligence, etc. If all women did was pop out hot bozos all the time our species would be doomed. There has to be people in the gene pool with the intellect and social skills to do things like design and build cities, develop and practice medicine, and conceive and implement new technology. So a woman's job is to look more than just skin deep if she wants to produce offspring to increase the chances of survival. Being shallow isn't deep, it isn't going to benefit humanity in any way. Being shallow isn't morally wrong in it of itself, but being shallow at the detriment to being deep of course is, since you are not considering much more important, intangible qualities that make our species do more than just "survive" but rather prosper and grow.

Now if people were birds of paradise I'd agree with you.

Nagicman1 · 2016-12-11T23:07:16+00:00

Genetics is everything, and just lol at people who think humans have free will.

AutoModerator · 2016-12-09T21:44:18+00:00

Attention!

You can post off topic/jokes/puns as a comment to this Automoderator message.
For "CMV" and "Question for X" Threads: Parent comments that aren't from the target group will be removed, along with their child replies.
If you want to agree with OP instead of challenging their view or if the question is not targeted at you, post it as an answer to this comment.
OP you can choose your own flair, just press Flair under your post!

Thanks for your cooperation and enjoy the discussion!

I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.

DucksCanDance · 2016-12-09T21:49:18+00:00

Disagree, it would be less shallow to judge a person based on the thing responsible for the looks, for example, appreciating someone's exercise routine and healthy diet would be deeper than "ooh big booty damn"

I suppose the deepest level would be genetics plus all influencing factors

Falkner1992 · 2016-12-10T03:19:41+00:00

People are shallow. Deal with it. And you can tell a lot more about a person by how they look than most would like to admit.

ThrowawayCactus6012 · 2016-12-10T12:51:26+00:00

there is nothing shallow about genetics. mating is about breeding, breedign is about genetics, genetic fitness increases survival.

Perhaps, although there's no scientific way of discerning this information just by looking at someone. You'd have to conduct a battery of tests, including intelligence and aptitudes tests. You can't tell how intelligent someone is just by their external appearance, and in this day and age, the only sensible approach is for women to choose solely by IQ.

But the fact that intelligence in a male is commonly viewed as a turn-off (or at best, a non-factor in the woman's choice of mate), that's very telling of where women stand nowadays. That's why it's considered shallow, since it indicates a desire to dumb down America's gene pool.

Candy_Kittens · 2016-12-10T13:17:25+00:00

It's only shallow if it is the only thing you care about when dating. Because then you are defining them into one dimension instead of acknowledging their humanity.

trail22 · 2016-12-11T02:06:10+00:00

In current society intellegence is more important for survival.

Yet at the same time in HS we all know that physical fitness is still a priority.

If it was truly about the fitness of offspring, then women woudl choose intellegence.

For example asian men make more money then white men in america. Yet in America asian men do considerably much worse on online dating.

maxytracks · 2017-01-06T20:45:28+00:00

It depends...to what extent do you judge potential partners based on looks? Because caring about looks doesn't make you shallow. Shallow is when you care more about looks than personality. So unless that's what you're doing, there isn't anything shallow with at least wanting your partner to be attractive.

And even if you care mostly about looks, you shouldn't feel bad about it because that's what guys do all the time.

[deleted] · 2016-12-10T04:53:41+00:00

[permanently deleted]

Title	There is nothing LESS shallow than judging potential mates on their looks
Author	Atlas_B_Shruggin
Upvotes	14
Comments	114
Date	December 9, 2016 9:44 PM UTC (9 years ago)
Subreddit	Posted in /r/PurplePillDebate
Original Link	https://old.reddit.com/r/PurplePillDebate/comments/5hgj6r/there_is_nothing_less_shallow_than_judging/
Archive Link	https://theredarchive.com/r/PurplePillDebate/there-is-nothing-less-shallow-than-judging.271376 https://theredarchive.com/post/271376

Comments