Ugly Monsters Ban Human Beings

[ArlEammon]

http://digitallife.today.com/_news/2011/06/20/6898529-dating-site-bans-30000-ugly-members?GT1=43001

THousands of people have been possibly very hurt by a disgusting website and it's narcissistic Dungeon Master. They claim that the members they banned have been banned for not being attractive. They were only able to access the website because of a "bug" in the system, or something. Whatever.

I think that people's hearts matter more in the long run than their outward appearance.

[thubby]

they're selling a stupid product so they have stupid standards.
honestly, i find it hard to care about people and groups that are at least honest about their warped values. especially given that the people who were dropped signed up knowing they were being judged on their appearance.

[AtlanteanTroll]

Eh, as stupid as it is, it makes sense. It's like a singles bar at a country club (not that those necessarily exist). You can't do anything about it.

[factotum]

Somebody from Sophos reckons this is purely a publicity stunt, and you can see his point--I mean, a virus that supposedly only gives ugly people access to this website? It sounds ridiculous right from the get-go.

[Asthix]

So they can neither confirm nor deny if the ugliness on the site was theirs? At this time it looks like the account may have been hacked?

You've got to use some more original excuses Beautifulpeopledotcom, those are a bit played out lately.

[skywalker]

I think that people's hearts matter more in the long run than their outward appearance.

Which is why you're free to join one of the thousands of other dating sites which match you on deeper issues such as interests and whether or not you are a "dog person."

I don't really find it that bad, especially since people paid for a certain product, that product has to be maintained, else the site won't succeed.

[thubby]

Somebody from Sophos reckons this is purely a publicity stunt, and you can see his point--I mean, a virus that supposedly only gives ugly people access to this website? It sounds ridiculous right from the get-go.

vote bots are nothing new. if it just up voted everyone, then the "beautiful" people would still get in, but so would the "ugly" ones.

[Traab]

The guy who supposedly did this worked for the site right? How do people place their votes? If its say, a 1-5 scale, and if your average is 3 or lower you are gone, the guy could have disabled the 1-2 buttons so they didnt register, so only it looked like only decent ratings were being logged.

[Haruki-kun]

Wow. That's... impressive. What an elitist site.

[Crow]

Don't like their site, use another one.

If they want to kick off paying customers, that's good for them. I'll take my ugly *** elsewhere :smalltongue:

Besides, they have a point. If someone signed up for their site looking for "beautiful" people, and found that it was just a bunch of average looking folks, people would be very disappointed, and possibly take their business elsewhere. They choose to serve a niche market, so be it.

[AtlanteanTroll]

Wow. That's... impressive. What an elitist site.

And there's something wrong with that? People are paying for the site.

[snoopy13a]

I don't know if it is all that bad. Nearly all people screen potential mates for looks to some extent. It is really just the level of screening that is different.

[Tengu_temp]

I don't see what the big deal is. Like Crow said, the whole point of this site is to date physically attractive people. You know what you're signing up for when you decide to join.

[ThirdEmperor]

Yeah, I can see why people would be upset about being told "no, sorry, there was a mistake, you're ugly", but really, what did they expect. It's a sight for pretty, shallow people who want to date other pretty, shallow people. And that's fine. The people who got kicked out knew they were being judged solely on appearances when they first tried to join, and really, this isn't all that different from just being rejected at the start. So, yeah, it's rather elitist, but stuff like this goes on all the time, unfortunately

[grimbold]

how do you even judge ugly?
i mean there are definitely ugly people
but how do you decide who is ugly and who is not?

[Occasional Sage]

Best thing about this: it led me to the story about the "Harry Potter app" proposal (http://digitallife.today.com/_news/2011/05/20/6681534-geek-makes-fake-harry-potter-android-app-to-propose?chromedomain=technolog).

[rayne_dragon]

The most ridiculous part about this is that I know for a fact that what some people would consider ugly is beautiful to other people. Beauty is highly subjective, so it's quite hard to make any kind of standard that will be consistant.

[Skeppio]

That's just disgusting. :smallannoyed: But then again, shallow morons. What can we expect? :smallsigh:

[Xefas]

I signed up for a college course, and they failed me and kicked me out because I'm dumb! Those shallow, disgusting bastards only care about intelligence! At a college, no less! Gah, the nerve.

[ZombyWoof]

That's just disgusting. :smallannoyed: But then again, shallow morons. What can we expect? :smallsigh:
It's not disgusting at all. In fact, I greatly applaud the effort to keep these people out of my gene pool. (http://xkcd.com/800/)

Anyone who's willing to pay $25 a month to be a member of a dating site that "only allows beautiful people" clearly hasn't got much going on upstairs.

[Castaras]

Meh, there's quite a few dating sites like that [The one that comes to mind is one that pairs up rich old men with beautiful young women]. It does what it says on the packet, so you go in knowing what's going to happen. Have to agree with Zomby - all the more better people for the rest of us.

[Coidzor]

And there's something wrong with that? People are paying for the site.

Possibly on a moral absolutist scale, their moral and ethical values themselves could be incredibly out of balance just for making the website.

[Tirian]

Do you think that Mensa is morally "out of balance" for collecting a bunch of people who only want to hang out with intellectually superior people and then devising a highly subjective test that ignores a large cross-section of the spectrum of intelligence?

(Me, I think they're both pretty silly organizations that feed too largely on the insecurity of their members, and I ultimately feel more pity for the borderline cases that are accepted than the borderline cases that are rejected. But it's not like I'm going to waste my energy challenging people who want to form communities for reasons that don't please me.)

[Coidzor]

Do you think that Mensa is morally "out of balance" for collecting a bunch of people who only want to hang out with intellectually superior people and then devising a highly subjective test that ignores a large cross-section of the spectrum of intelligence?

(Me, I think they're both pretty silly organizations that feed too largely on the insecurity of their members, and I ultimately feel more pity for the borderline cases that are accepted than the borderline cases that are rejected. But it's not like I'm going to waste my energy challenging people who want to form communities for reasons that don't please me.)

If you are correct in your belief that they feed on the insecurities of their members, then I certainly see some moral frameworks as having cases to make, yes.

Is thriving by feeding and building up insecurities and increasing the "us" vs. "them" paradigm behavior that no ethical framework could ever find fault in?

[ZombyWoof]

Is thriving by feeding and building up insecurities and increasing the "us" vs. "them" paradigm behavior that no ethical framework could ever find fault in?
Just because you can find fault in it doesn't mean you should.

[Crow]

Warning; Complete ass posting this.

To say that a person who wants an attractive mate must be some kind of materialistic, shallow moron is just as short sighted and shallow as the (alleged) type of people you are judging. To make things worse, people are judging an entire group that they know next to nothing about.

I know a lot of attractive women who prefer attractive men. They aren't shallow, or dumb, or materialistic (for the most part).

As a matter of fact, I'd venture that the majority of "beautiful" people are just as turned off by a complete moron or obvious gold digger as an "ugly" person would be.

If we want to talk about ugly on the inside, let's take a look in the mirror.

[Fiery Diamond]

The most ridiculous part about this is that I know for a fact that what some people would consider ugly is beautiful to other people. Beauty is highly subjective, so it's quite hard to make any kind of standard that will be consistant.

This is extremely true. I've had discussions with people in which they tried to convince me that someone I found to be decidedly unattractive was highly attractive and they told me something was wrong with me for finding another person to be highly attractive.


That's just disgusting. :smallannoyed: But then again, shallow morons. What can we expect? :smallsigh:

Completely agreed.


I signed up for a college course, and they failed me and kicked me out because I'm dumb! Those shallow, disgusting bastards only care about intelligence! At a college, no less! Gah, the nerve.

Except that colleges are places where the ability to learn is integral to the purpose of the institution. That's kind of the whole point to it. Dating that views appearance to be the whole point is both foolish and shallow. It is not an accurate comparison.


It's not disgusting at all. In fact, I greatly applaud the effort to keep these people out of my gene pool. (http://xkcd.com/800/)

Except that it doesn't necessarily keep them out, unfortunately.

Anyone who's willing to pay $25 a month to be a member of a dating site that "only allows beautiful people" clearly hasn't got much going on upstairs.

Agreed.


Just because you can find fault in it doesn't mean you should.

And just because it's possible to be permissive of nearly every attitude and behavior in the world doesn't mean you should, either.


Warning; Complete ass posting this.

To say that a person who wants an attractive mate must be some kind of materialistic, shallow moron is just as short sighted and shallow as the (alleged) type of people you are judging. To make things worse, people are judging an entire group that they know next to nothing about.

I know a lot of attractive women who prefer attractive men. They aren't shallow, or dumb, or materialistic (for the most part).

As a matter of fact, I'd venture that the majority of "beautiful" people are just as turned off by a complete moron or obvious gold digger as an "ugly" person would be.

If we want to talk about ugly on the inside, let's take a look in the mirror.

1) No, it isn't. Granted, we are judging others we know little about, but I think an accurate comparison would be judging sadistic people as having something wrong with them. We don't know much about them, but what we do know is damning. See next point for my reasoning.

2) So? Having attractiveness of potential mates be on your list of priorities isn't shallow. Having it be #1 or at least close to #1 on your list, however, is. If you told me you knew someone who was not materialistic, shallow, or dumb but yet only ever considered "hot" people (or "sexy" people, of "beautiful people") as prospective dates regardless of the other positive attributes of other people they meet, I'd tell you you are definitional-ly wrong. Probably in a non-nice way, were this conversation to occur elsewhere. Let's just say I feel very strongly about this.

3) And what relevance does that have to anything? You seem to be setting up a straw man that falls into something similar to the Stormwind Fallacy for gaming, only replace "optimizing" with "attractive" and "role-playing" with "non-shallow."

4) You can argue we shouldn't be judging others, but don't argue that we're somehow being ugly cruel people for criticizing the people who made that site and the people who pay to use it.

Edit: Edited to replace something that someone might construe as flaming (though I still don't consider it so).

[Tirian]

If you are correct in your belief that they feed on the insecurities of their members, then I certainly see some moral frameworks as having cases to make, yes.

Is thriving by feeding and building up insecurities and increasing the "us" vs. "them" paradigm behavior that no ethical framework could ever find fault in?

There are multiple rationales for these communities. One is that people have a natural desire to be in groups of people who are like them in terms of interests or talents or just similar in identity. Some of that desire is noble (like being in a chess club might spur you to easily find fair rivals and teachers and therefore make you a better chess player) and some are less noble (to avoid real-world situations, let's use the Star-Bellied Sneetches (http://youtu.be/v3yJomUhs0g)).

I'd argue that Mensa is an example of a club that's somewhere in the middle. Some people earnestly appreciate the synergy of an intellectually-motivated community, and some people are desperate for an external source that gives them a card saying "You're smart enough". It's not a club that I belong to (despite being eligible), but I'm not going to deny their right to exist.

I feel largely the same way about a club for people who subscribe to some common standard of physical beauty (except that I suspect that I wouldn't be eligible for membership :smallwink:). Some people are looking for like-minded partners to make beautiful children or at least someone you can split a case of styling gel and carpool to the gym. I'm not going to take the effort to micromanage their standards out of some concern that people on one side of the cusp will feel bad and people on the other side of the cusp will feel proud and/or nervous.

[snoopy13a]

Overall, people are going to hang out with those people they want to hang out with.

[Coidzor]

Just because you can find fault in it doesn't mean you should.

*shrug* As I said, it depends upon the moral framework one is working from. :smallwink:

You seem to be under the mistaken impression I have any morality to speak of. Protip: I don't.

I have heard of others having them and even codifying them into formal systems though, and was speaking to the fact that there probably are ways of viewing the world from a moral standpoint that would find problems with the specific examples that have been brought up in the thread so far.

So I could understand why some would feel some level of objection rather than being all confused about how they could have objections in the first place like many people who responded in the thread.

[Sipex]

The only problem I see here is based around the opinion of ugly. Did the banned members have benchmarks and measurements to go by to know if they fit into the category of ugly or not? If not, they're baited into a trap where they could be subjected to the whim of some moderator declaring them ugly without proof of claim at any time.

Also:

1) Finding your mate attractive is just as important as having similar interests and enjoying their company. Really, you should be aiming for someone who fits all the niches in your life. This doesn't mean that every person has to be attractive according to popular media (which changes it's mind based on who the popular actors are at the time) in order to find a mate, it just means that two people who are together should be attracted to each other.

I mean, seriously, how would any of you feel if your partner admitted to you one day "You know, I really never found you physically attractive but I dated you because we had a lot in common."

2) Anyone who signs up for a site like this in the first place should understand the risks. This happened before (same site I believe) when it banned several members for gaining a couple pounds over the winter.

[Fiery Diamond]

The only problem I see here is based around the opinion of ugly. Did the banned members have benchmarks and measurements to go by to know if they fit into the category of ugly or not? If not, they're baited into a trap where they could be subjected to the whim of some moderator declaring them ugly without proof of claim at any time.

Also:

1) Finding your mate attractive is just as important as having similar interests and enjoying their company. Really, you should be aiming for someone who fits all the niches in your life. This doesn't mean that every person has to be attractive according to popular media (which changes it's mind based on who the popular actors are at the time) in order to find a mate, it just means that two people who are together should be attracted to each other.

I mean, seriously, how would any of you feel if your partner admitted to you one day "You know, I really never found you physically attractive but I dated you because we had a lot in common."

2) Anyone who signs up for a site like this in the first place should understand the risks. This happened before (same site I believe) when it banned several members for gaining a couple pounds over the winter.

Responding to your 1):

Depends on what you mean by attractive, for your first statement. Finding your mate non-repulsive physically is certainly something that would be important, since people tend to respond negatively toward people they are repulsed by. Finding your mate physically better looking than random opposite sex member on the street, however, is NOT "just as important," and I take offense at the notion that it is. It makes me :smallfurious::smallfurious::smallfurious:

People should be attracted to each other, sure, but physical attraction is only part of that. It is probably the most powerful initial attractor, but it is certainly not anywhere close to the most important attractor, especially in the long run. Relationships built primarily on physical attraction readily fall apart, especially as those involved age.

And to answer your question: I'd probably be hurt to begin with, yes, and maybe angry for a little while, if I were told by a romantic partner that she didn't find me physically attractive. What reasons she gave for dating me, however, would determine how I would feel after the initial reflexive reaction. If it were just "we have a lot in common" and nothing else, I'd probably be flabbergasted, since that is more a reason to be friends with someone. If, on the other hand, she gave personality traits of mine she enjoyed, talked about how she loved my company, and so forth - you know, backed up why she dated me with actual reasons she liked me, even if that didn't happen to include her finding me particularly physically attractive: then ultimately, I wouldn't really care that she didn't find me physically attractive.

Don't bother being amazed that someone could possibly feel that way. I'm more amazed that anyone wouldn't feel that way.



...
With regard to the site specifically: they have the legal right to do it, and people are aware of what they are getting into when they apply and so shouldn't be terribly surprised when they get banned or rejected. That doesn't stop it from being shallow and disgusting.

[Knaight]

With regard to the site specifically: they have the legal right to do it, and people are aware of what they are getting into when they apply and so shouldn't be terribly surprised when they get banned or rejected. That doesn't stop it from being shallow and disgusting.

There is also the matter of how this went down. The way the site is structured is supposed to prevent people who aren't attractive from joining, that's fine. Its a hang out for people who have something in common, which I have absolutely no issue with. However, what went down here was apparently a case where people were allowed on the site, and in some cases had already met other people through the site, before they decided to summarily kick them out. It sounds like there was no warning period, no opportunity given to get better contact with the people who were met through the site, nothing, just an instant termination.

That is incredibly rude.

[Sipex]

Wow, okay, that's pretty bad. I remember this site, it's the one where you apply for membership then the other members rate you. If you get a good enough rating, you're in.

I wonder what basis they used for 'oh no, suddenly we think you're ugly'. Not enough winks in a month? What is this? Some kind of factory?


Responding to your 1):

Depends on what you mean by attractive, for your first statement. Finding your mate non-repulsive physically is certainly something that would be important, since people tend to respond negatively toward people they are repulsed by. Finding your mate physically better looking than random opposite sex member on the street, however, is NOT "just as important," and I take offense at the notion that it is. It makes me :smallfurious::smallfurious::smallfurious:

People should be attracted to each other, sure, but physical attraction is only part of that. It is probably the most powerful initial attractor, but it is certainly not anywhere close to the most important attractor, especially in the long run. Relationships built primarily on physical attraction readily fall apart, especially as those involved age.

And to answer your question: I'd probably be hurt to begin with, yes, and maybe angry for a little while, if I were told by a romantic partner that she didn't find me physically attractive. What reasons she gave for dating me, however, would determine how I would feel after the initial reflexive reaction. If it were just "we have a lot in common" and nothing else, I'd probably be flabbergasted, since that is more a reason to be friends with someone. If, on the other hand, she gave personality traits of mine she enjoyed, talked about how she loved my company, and so forth - you know, backed up why she dated me with actual reasons she liked me, even if that didn't happen to include her finding me particularly physically attractive: then ultimately, I wouldn't really care that she didn't find me physically attractive.

Don't bother being amazed that someone could possibly feel that way. I'm more amazed that anyone wouldn't feel that way.

This is a big reply, and hard to approach because anything I say could be perceived as an attack on your views. Also, the internet doesn't take to kindly to anyone who takes my stance.

First I'd like to point out that that last bit is uneeded and hurtful. It seems like an attack on me (or any who share the same views). It feels like it suggests that those who speak out against your opinion are short sighted or stupid instead of simply differing of opinion. In a disagreement like this views and individuals should be treated with respect and understanding, otherwise it all just devolves into a flame war.

I had something big written up but I'll spoiler it since now I'm not sure if we agree or disagree. It actually seems like we agree up until that last part where you made the comment so if you're interested in exploring the conversation feel free to read on, otherwise I would say there's not much we can say.

I would also like to mention that my views used to be pretty polarised towards "Attraction is not necessary in a relationship" in my teen years which was pretty short sighted and largely contributed to by the ideals imposed on me by others (who were of the opinion that any physical attraction was shallow and made you a horrible horrible person). I say this because I want to make it clear that I'm not being a shallow idiot, these views come from experience in what has made me and those around me happy.

I will not argue that physical attraction is the most important attractor, I don't believe that, but I do believe that it's important. On your comment about "more attractive than the average person on the street" is subjective. Your perceived tone makes me think you're still thinking 'stereotypically attractive' when that's not the case here, I'm going on an individual basis. What I find attractive might be ugly to someone else (in fact, I'm into slightly larger girls, so I'm sure there are a few choice groups who'd like to get on my case about that). Therefore, someone is always going to find someone who you may perceive as an 'average person on the street' attractive.

I would also like to note that physical attraction is more than looks which may simply be where the mix up is between our opinions. Physical attraction is also in how you hold yourself (confidence, attitude) and your personality.

"Wait, personality? Are you even talking about physical attraction anymore?" you might ask. To which I respond, yes. Rarely do these things stand on their own, they require synergy from your other facets. There's a reason why you can make yourself look so much better simply with some basic grooming (showering, clean clothes) and confidence. Only part of your perceived physical attraction is in your attributes (which appeal differently to different people) while the other part is in your additional facets.

So the case where you like someone's personality but still don't find them physically attractive is already going to be rare as it is, but what if it happens? Does it make you a horrible person if you want to break up with someone for this reason?

No, not at all.

It's not fair to them. You're not doing the person any favours by sticking by them because you're not physically attracted to them in any way. Tons of people are going to find your partner attractive, why deny them this?

It's not fair to you. You're a person who has every right to define what you want in a partner. Sticking with someone because of the perceived shallowness of one facet is wrong and it's wrong that some people might think you a horrible person for it (where as it would be perfectly fine to break it off with someone you don't find intellectually attractive).

edit: I realise this kind of rambles on but I put so much thought into it that it felt like a waste to delete it.

[Fiery Diamond]

Wow, okay, that's pretty bad. I remember this site, it's the one where you apply for membership then the other members rate you. If you get a good enough rating, you're in.

I wonder what basis they used for 'oh no, suddenly we think you're ugly'. Not enough winks in a month? What is this? Some kind of factory?



This is a big reply, and hard to approach because anything I say could be perceived as an attack on your views. Also, the internet doesn't take to kindly to anyone who takes my stance.

First I'd like to point out that that last bit is uneeded and hurtful. It seems like an attack on me (or any who share the same views). It feels like it suggests that those who speak out against your opinion are short sighted or stupid instead of simply differing of opinion. In a disagreement like this views and individuals should be treated with respect and understanding, otherwise it all just devolves into a flame war.

I had something big written up but I'll spoiler it since now I'm not sure if we agree or disagree. It actually seems like we agree up until that last part where you made the comment so if you're interested in exploring the conversation feel free to read on, otherwise I would say there's not much we can say.

I would also like to mention that my views used to be pretty polarised towards "Attraction is not necessary in a relationship" in my teen years which was pretty short sighted and largely contributed to by the ideals imposed on me by others (who were of the opinion that any physical attraction was shallow and made you a horrible horrible person). I say this because I want to make it clear that I'm not being a shallow idiot, these views come from experience in what has made me and those around me happy.

Paragraph A
I will not argue that physical attraction is the most important attractor, I don't believe that, but I do believe that it's important. On your comment about "more attractive than the average person on the street" is subjective. Your perceived tone makes me think you're still thinking 'stereotypically attractive' when that's not the case here, I'm going on an individual basis. What I find attractive might be ugly to someone else (in fact, I'm into slightly larger girls, so I'm sure there are a few choice groups who'd like to get on my case about that). Therefore, someone is always going to find someone who you may perceive as an 'average person on the street' attractive.

Paragraphs B
I would also like to note that physical attraction is more than looks which may simply be where the mix up is between our opinions. Physical attraction is also in how you hold yourself (confidence, attitude) and your personality.

"Wait, personality? Are you even talking about physical attraction anymore?" you might ask. To which I respond, yes. Rarely do these things stand on their own, they require synergy from your other facets. There's a reason why you can make yourself look so much better simply with some basic grooming (showering, clean clothes) and confidence. Only part of your perceived physical attraction is in your attributes (which appeal differently to different people) while the other part is in your additional facets.

Paragraphs C
So the case where you like someone's personality but still don't find them physically attractive is already going to be rare as it is, but what if it happens? Does it make you a horrible person if you want to break up with someone for this reason?

No, not at all.

It's not fair to them. You're not doing the person any favours by sticking by them because you're not physically attracted to them in any way. Tons of people are going to find your partner attractive, why deny them this?

It's not fair to you. You're a person who has every right to define what you want in a partner. Sticking with someone because of the perceived shallowness of one facet is wrong and it's wrong that some people might think you a horrible person for it (where as it would be perfectly fine to break it off with someone you don't find intellectually attractive).

edit: I realise this kind of rambles on but I put so much thought into it that it felt like a waste to delete it.

Firstly: I apologize for the confrontational nature of my last two sentences. I was just having difficulty wrapping my mind around the fact that someone would value whether their partner found them physically attractive above other things enough to be seriously and significantly upset by it in the long run. Your question seemed to be phrased more as a rhetorical one, implying "of course you'd be deeply offended if your partner said that!" And, well, while I would be hurt in the short term, in the big scheme of things it wouldn't upset me that much, which is in contrast with how it seemed you assumed it was obvious people would respond. So I apologize for the way it came across.

Secondly: You're spoilered bit... explains a lot. We don't disagree nearly as much as I thought. You are defining physical attraction a lot more broadly than I do, and I was unaware of this. In the context of the website, the physical attraction would, by virtue of just looking at posed static images, be limited to how I was using the term, so I didn't even consider that you might be defining it more broadly.

I'll approach by what I've labeled in the spoiler. Note that I was in that post using the narrower definition to refer just to looks, which is where a lot of the disconnect occurred.

Paragraph A: We may still disagree, but I think I should add some clarification to what I meant by "more attractive than the average person on the street." I was actually talking about personal views on attractiveness, like you, not "stereotypically attractive." What I meant was, if you look at the physical appearance of individuals you encounter every day, it is not highly important that your romantic interest actually stand out in terms of how attractive his/her appearance is to you. If you didn't know that person, she/he could be someone your eye would pass over without you thinking about it if you encountered him/her in passing; he/she doesn't necessarily need to be someone you would notice in a room full of people and remark to yourself that he/she is cute/hot/pretty/handsome/whatever. His/her physical appearance standing out to you may be something that would cause you to interact further and investigate the possibility of romance, but it isn't needed; you might end up interacting with that individual, whom you wouldn't have really looked at normally, for other reasons and develop a romantic interest.

Paragraphs B: Ah. We were using physical attractiveness very differently. I was referring just to appearance (and as I said, that's really all that could be gleaned in the particular setting we were initially discussing). In the broader usage you were using, which includes factoring in how your personality and other attributes interact with your appearance... well, that's a horse of a different color. I'd think that using that broader usage, physical attractiveness is almost inevitably going to be fairly high ranking on the list of things that appeal to you about your romantic partner... in some ways, it's a "which came first, the chicken or the egg?" thing: it might not have been something you initially sought when looking for a partner, but upon finding someone the person happened to have it; in some cases, you might not have even really noticed it until you developed a deeper relationship, and then you began to see it plainly.

Paragraphs C: Well... let's just say I'd feel sympathy for the person who was broken up with and... not be pleased with the one who did the breaking up. This part is probably the part we disagree most strongly one. So... I'll agree to disagree on this one, so as to remain civil and polite.

[Tyndmyr]

Which is why you're free to join one of the thousands of other dating sites which match you on deeper issues such as interests and whether or not you are a "dog person."

I don't really find it that bad, especially since people paid for a certain product, that product has to be maintained, else the site won't succeed.

Yup. I agree. I have no particular desire to check out the site myself, other than perhaps from perverse curiosity as to their rating, but they've basically got one shtick. If they don't deliver on it, they're worthless. They HAVE to do this.

I'm not 100% sure it's a GOOD shtick...certainly interpretations of beauty are variable, but there are some constants, and I can see why such a thing exists.

[Knaight]

Paragraphs B: Ah. We were using physical attractiveness very differently. I was referring just to appearance (and as I said, that's really all that could be gleaned in the particular setting we were initially discussing). In the broader usage you were using, which includes factoring in how your personality and other attributes interact with your appearance... well, that's a horse of a different color. I'd think that using that broader usage, physical attractiveness is almost inevitably going to be fairly high ranking on the list of things that appeal to you about your romantic partner... in some ways, it's a "which came first, the chicken or the egg?" thing: it might not have been something you initially sought when looking for a partner, but upon finding someone the person happened to have it; in some cases, you might not have even really noticed it until you developed a deeper relationship, and then you began to see it plainly.

Appearance doesn't exist in a vacuum. If you actually have a decent idea of what someone looks like, you've likely met them, and that will change your perception of their appearance. If you like someone's personality, the traits in their appearance you dislike are likely to escape notice, while the ones you like get noticed, if you spend enough time around someone like this it will permanently change your preferences towards their features.

Conversely, if you dislike someone, you pick out the bad traits and notice them, ignoring traits you happen to like. Moreover, if forced to spend time with these people, your preferences will shift away from their appearance. Between this and the people you like, conflicted emotions, etc. preferences are highly fluid. Add people changing appearance over time, and it gets to the point where mild reactions to appearance on either side can just be ignored, as they will change.

[Fiery Diamond]

Appearance doesn't exist in a vacuum. If you actually have a decent idea of what someone looks like, you've likely met them, and that will change your perception of their appearance. If you like someone's personality, the traits in their appearance you dislike are likely to escape notice, while the ones you like get noticed, if you spend enough time around someone like this it will permanently change your preferences towards their features.

Conversely, if you dislike someone, you pick out the bad traits and notice them, ignoring traits you happen to like. Moreover, if forced to spend time with these people, your preferences will shift away from their appearance. Between this and the people you like, conflicted emotions, etc. preferences are highly fluid. Add people changing appearance over time, and it gets to the point where mild reactions to appearance on either side can just be ignored, as they will change.

Completely correct. This is why, now that I realize the more encompassing usage was intended, I modified my stance.

However, if you are using "that person I spy over there is hot/sexy/cute/beautiful, maybe I should see if I can date him/her; I'll go chat him/her up" as your approach -- well, I don't think highly of people who try to use physical appearance from a distance to decide who to interact with as potential partners, rather than having physical appearance influence their decision of partner more organically through interactions with others around them. And that's the approach that those using this website are doing: they are attempting to narrow down their choices to those whose physical appearance, detached from all their other attributes (as much "in a vacuum" as you can get) are "beautiful" before they even start looking for a partner. I find that to be very shallow.

[Knaight]

And that's the approach that those using this website are doing: they are attempting to narrow down their choices to those whose physical appearance, detached from all their other attributes (as much "in a vacuum" as you can get) are "beautiful" before they even start looking for a partner. I find that to be very shallow.

Hardly. Its likely to be more of a case of existing in a community, and finding other people who you get along with. Its merely that there has been pre-selection of appearance, setting an initial high bar, though one that is still highly mobile.

[Fiery Diamond]

Hardly. Its likely to be more of a case of existing in a community, and finding other people who you get along with. Its merely that there has been pre-selection of appearance, setting an initial high bar, though one that is still highly mobile.

Given that they CHOSE to join that community, even PAID to join that community, knowing that physical "beauty" was the schtick of that community... I fail to see a difference.

[Trekkin]

I've known people to do something similar to this site in physical form, as a clique based around this existed in my high school. They'd only accept pretty kids with rich parents and nice cars into their club (the name of which I forget), and would hold car show after car show for various causes. (They were always the only attendees.)The thing I remember most about them is that they devoted roughly ninety percent of their meeting time to deciding whether a given kid should be admitted or not, as compared to the other clubs whose admission process consisted almost entirely of saying you wanted to join and finding something that needed doing to work on. It was literally the reason their group existed.

Looking at this site, and reading reviews of it, I think the same thing is at work here, given the elaborate voting structure and how much of their pay structure is devoted to seeing your ranking and ranking others. It comes off more as a site devoted to establishing the members as beautiful and discerning sophisticates than to actually helping people forge rewarding relationships--and really, if someone out there honestly needs that kind of validation on this scale, I'm not cruel enough to call their search for it shallow or pointless. I'm just happy they have some source of positive feedback from people whose opinion they value to bolster their self-esteem.