This discussion is now closed.

Check out other Related discussions

Be honest, would you go out with someone with no legs?

Scroll to see replies

In my opinion I doesn't really matter if someone has lost their leg/s, but it's more important the way that they treat it. As for the aesthetic thing meh, blades look cool, prosthetics (imitating) look ok if they're covered.

Let me expand more; If someone loses a/two leg/s, and they go in a wheelchair get depressed completely change their dreams, aspirations basically become sedatory immobile and reclusive. Then that's way too much. Yet if someone tries and tries to walk on prosthetics, in attempt for their disability to disable their lives as least as possible, being sociable, having normal friends and relationships and a suitable career/education then i respect them for that hugely, even if they tried and failed (to some extent), then whatever, they're NORMAL.

For expansion on this view there alot of disabled writers/speakers who follow this. There was a soldier who was a recent double amputee who carried the olympic torch. In his BBC interview, he said his ambition was to regain his normal life, learning to use his prosthetics and walking. Another good person for this is a Brazilian blind swimmer (cann't rember his name). He has given some speeches (to companies) saying that he was gifted his disability and he doesn't view it as a limit to his life.

(edited 11 years ago)

Reply 61

anonymouspie227

Original post by Tuerin

This legalistic loophole is everywhere on these threads. The catch is that, chances are, most people wouldn't give them a chance to be likeable because what initially attracts us to a person romantically is their aesthetics. People often say personality is the most important factor but there has to be some filter in who to approach/accept courting from in this way and who not to and its natural for people to use physical desirability as this filter. Unless you were forced into contact with him over a long period, chances are you would never like him because you wouldn't give him a chance to be likeable as not having legs would probably catch him very firmly in the filter of physical desirability. Not a judgement on you personally.

I was always under the impression that characteristics that people found attractive were subjective. Whilst I don't doubt that people find physical appearance important when deciding who to date etc, just because some people may not find say "having no legs" unattractive, doesn't mean that all people do. *You can't always predict what people will do*

*forced, really? *doesn't paint human beings very nicely

(edited 11 years ago)

Reply 62

danny111

I love sports, and I honestly think I can only marry a gal who I can do sports with. I don't have many interests so that has to be one (the other main ones being reading, movies, football, biathlon so not much where you can go out together) . Now if she is like Pistorius and active, no problem, but else I don't see it working out.

Reply 63

llessur123

If they made up for it in looks in other ways then it wouldn't bother me to be honest. Although if it were two identical people looks and personality wise then I probably would take the one with legs over those without. But generally it wouldn't bother me too much.

I'm talking about someone with a below the knee amputation though, I don't know if it could work with someone in a wheelchair.

Posted from TSR Mobile

(edited 11 years ago)

Reply 64

anonymouspie227

Original post by ChocoCoatedLemons

Well that's very nice, but you're not attracted to every single nice person above the age of seventeen.

People don't choose if they're really ugly (by society's standards), but just because they have a nice personality doesn't mean you'd still want to date them as much as someone who is lovely AND attractive.

That is true. But, it doesn't mean that I would reject *the idea of dating someone from* a whole group of people based on something they physically share- say "having no legs".

(edited 11 years ago)

Reply 65

Miss_ Rhonnie

It's not everyday that you meet somebody with no legs so it would be highly unlikely. But I wouldn't necessarily end a relationship if my partner lost their legs :/

Reply 66

Birkenhead

Original post by anonymouspie227

Are you seriously suggesting a significant portion of society would not see having no legs as a significant drawback in a relationship? Please. Of course it's all subjective but there are certain things which scientific studies of attraction have consistently proven to be held by most people; indicators of health etc. Having working limbs is surely one of these.

*You can't always predict what people will do*

You can, however, reason that most people use physical desirability as a filter for who to pursue romantically and that not having legs would seriously undermine someone's desirability; thus, that not having legs would seirously undermine someone's chances of getting in a relationship.

*forced, really? *doesn't paint human beings very nicely

Have you had a look at the state of the world recently? I'm afraid we're not a very nice bunch, us humans. That's the price for being Earth's supreme species and surviving millions of years of evolution.

I wasn't suggesting, however, that you would have to be forced to spending time with someone with no legs. Merely that where you don't know a legless person and have plenty of other people to be able to associate with it simply makes more sense to become emotionally invested in those without the baggage of disability. No it's not nice but for most people this is the truth.

(edited 11 years ago)

Reply 67

ChocoCoatedLemons

Original post by anonymouspie227

That is true. But, it doesn't mean that I would reject *the idea of dating someone from* a whole group of people based on something they physically share- say "having no legs".

... I have no idea what you meant by that. Elaborate? :confused:

Reply 68

username927016

Original post by Sammydemon

All I can imagine is spinning the person around on my penis during sexual intercourse. Could work out.

Epic comment right there :congrats:

Reply 69

Anonymous #1

Original post by moonziggy

This is a good question!
Say I was with someone and he lost his legs, I wouldn't break up with him because he lost his legs, I think that's pretty shallow. For example, if your husband or wife lost their legs in an accident, you wouldn't leave them would you?
If I met someone with no legs and I really liked them then I would definitely give it a shot tbh.
Talking about it with people, I'd probably say exactly what I've typed above.

I think the question here is, could you really like someone with no legs?

Reply 70

username1002982

Original post by Tuerin

Where in the OP did it make this distinction? All I can see is having no legs, nothing about whether this is specifically wheelchairs/Pistorian prosthetics

I thought it was implied from the conversation. Doesn't matter anyway, it's what I got from it.

Posted from TSR Mobile

Reply 71

Witty Username

Original post by Sheldor

The legless people you've seen in chairs are probably above the knee amputees or have other problems.(eg, people with heart/general health issues can't use prosthetics due to the extra strain on the body) I think here we're talking more Oscar Pistorious, Adam Hill prosthetics than wheelchairs, which are different.

Actually, a lot of leg amputees choose not to wear prosthetic limbs at all, and use wheelchairs instead as the poorly fitting, painful prosthetic limbs supplied by the NHS aren't worth the effort for a lot of them. http://www.channel4.com/news/blade-runner-not-reality-for-most-amputees

Reply 72

anonymouspie227

Original post by Tuerin

Woah woah, (not looking for an argument) where am I suggesting anything in that quote? I said that we can't say that all people find a certain physical characteristic unattractive- which is true. Beauty is subjective. I'm not trying to say what a significant portion of society find "a significant drawback," because I do not know what a significant portion of society find to be a drawback in a relationship, and like i've mentioned previously, even if most people find something unattractive etc, it doesn't mean that all people do.

Have you had a look at the state of the world recently? I'm afraid we're not a very nice bunch, us humans. That's the price for being Earth's supreme species and surviving millions of years of evolution. I wasn't suggesting, however, that you would have to be forced to spending time with someone with no legs. Merely that where you don't know a legless person and have plenty of other people to be able to associate with it simply makes more sense to become emotionally invested in those without the baggage of disability. No it's not nice but for most people this is the truth.

....
Not everyone shares in that thinking.

(edited 11 years ago)

Reply 73

Kazbian

Well it would definitely make someone less attractive, but it wouldn't stop me going out with them.

Reply 74

anonymouspie227

Original post by ChocoCoatedLemons

... I have no idea what you meant by that. Elaborate? :confused:

Sorry, let me rephrase.
You: But you don't find everyone above 17 attractive.
Me : It is true that I don't find everyone over 17 attractive.But, I wouldn't not date someone because they had no legs.

Reply 75

Birkenhead

Original post by anonymouspie227

You said that everyone finds different things attractive in response to me saying that most people would find leglessness unattractive. Unless you were opposing this, which you deny but which makes most sense to infer, saying that beauty is in the eye of the beholder in this way is completely vacuous and has no contribution to the discussion. It's a truism.

Most people would consider leglessness to be a significant practical drawback, and most would find leglessness to be unattractive, since it's not something most would sub-consciously see as beneficial to passing on, even when it's not a genetic inheritance.

....
Not everyone shares in that thinking.

Most do, because it makes the most sense.

(edited 11 years ago)

Reply 76

ChocoCoatedLemons

Original post by anonymouspie227

Sorry, let me rephrase.
You: But you don't find everyone above 17 attractive.
Me : It is true that I don't find everyone over 17 attractive.But, I wouldn't not date someone because they had no legs.

I understand now.

I would not necessarily reject someone because they did not have legs, but I would be less attracted to them due to this. As would nearly everyone, in reality.

Reply 77

JagSan

Original post by Lumos

assumption that legs are the key to attraction... brad pitt with prosthetic legs is still brad pitt, no? how many women do you know who say "god, brad pitt is so fit, I mean have you seen his knees?!?!" ?

Wow you completely missed the point. It's talking about general appearance, not just legs.

Reply 78

username1002982

Original post by Witty Username

Ah, that's interesting. Sorry, I only really have magazine article knowledge of this. And the Last Leg on channel 4, so it's a topic I'm not too educated on.

Posted from TSR Mobile

Reply 79

anonymouspie227

Original post by Tuerin