Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free
x Turn on thread page Beta

Boys, could you ever fancy a plain/unattractive girl? watch

Announcements
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    Attractiveness is not just reference to looks, it is also in reference to personality. I mean girls go crazy for Benedict Cumberbatch as Sherlock Holmes and Matt Smith as Doctor Who and neither of them are conventionally good looking. So if girls can fancy not-very-good-looking guys then it could work vice versa too.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    I could definitely fancy a plain girl if I really liked her personality. I probably couldn't fancy an ugly girl in the same situation, though how good-looking anyone is is ultimately subjective. I've really fancied women before who might have been considered ugly by a lot of men.

    I think a supposedly ugly woman could go a long way towards being fancied by guys if she has a generally great personality, keeps herself in good physical shape (eg. doesn't allow herself to get fat), eats healthily and uses makeup etc. to enhance her beauty.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    Unattractive is subjective. Plain by definition is not fanciable. But mystery is better than looks.
    Offline

    8
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by PricklyPorcupine)
    Attractiveness is not just reference to looks, it is also in reference to personality. I mean girls go crazy for Benedict Cumberbatch as Sherlock Holmes and Matt Smith as Doctor Who and neither of them are conventionally good looking. So if girls can fancy not-very-good-looking guys then it could work vice versa too.
    They aren't? **** chance the rest of us have then, I thought they were both considered quite handsome.
    Offline

    10
    ReputationRep:
    Good looking guy with "less"-attractive girl or good looking girl with "less"-attractive guy - it can happen but typically only in a few select cases.

    There was a girl at my secondary school who used to sit next to me in class because it went in alphabetical order. She wasn't the prettiest and she might have not caught my eye in a crowd. (I'm not saying that I'm really good looking or anything but her's wasnt the looks you'd typically go for.) But once I got to know her, I soon found that she was one of the nicest girls I've ever met, really kind, sweet and she was definitely up for a laugh! We had such a laugh, flirted quite a lot and oh man, some of the stuff she (and I) came out with were seriously x-rated lol I sort of wished I had asked her out then. I don't know why I didn't, she would have made a great gf.
    • Section Leader
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    Section Leader
    If I am attracted to someone then that person is by implication attractive (to me). But can I be attracted to conventionally unattractive girls? Sure.
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Mangaka)
    No if I was to date someone i would want a girl with a good personality whom i also find attractive, otherwise we would just be good friends.
    Pretty much this. You want a girlfriend that has a good personality and who you find attractive.

    If they have a good personality but they're not attractive then you would want to be there friend but you wouldn't fancy them.

    Bear in mind of course that it is entirely subjective. Someone lots of people find ugly will likely be considered attractive by someone else.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by evantej)
    If you had ten people and graded them in attractiveness from one to ten, and the person who was a seven improved themselves physically up to a nine, then the people who were eight and nine would shift down. To suggest otherwise is nonsense. Even in a room of supermodels you would find one more attractive than another and grade them from one to ten (i.e. normative rather than criterion referenced assessment).
    Nobody does this. I do not look at a girl and think, "Approximately what percentile of attractiveness is she?". I think "Do I like what I see? How much?". If something (be that thing a landscape view, a painting, a person, or anything else) looks pretty to me, then the existence of other pretty things does not make it less so, just as the existence of lots of ugly things wouldn't make it look any better.*

    *Although, if beauty becomes commonplace then you may take it for granted, and if it becomes scare then you may appreciate more than you otherwise would, that doesn't mean you're actually more or less attracted to it.

    To use another example, if I had 10 girls who spanned absolutely hideous (1) to utter perfection (10) in roughly equal "steps", then replaced all but 4 and 10 with more 1s, I wouldn't suddenly find 4 any more attractive (even though on your scale she'd now be a 9). I may be forced to lower my standards to improve my chances of getting any girl (if the 10 was simply out my reach), but the 4 would look no better than she had originally.

    The fact you see lots of good looking women shows you have a limited sample size (i.e. young girls are statistically the best looking of the whole population).
    This basically proves my point. I would only ever really go for girls of around my age group, simply because they're more likely to have more in common with me etc (even say midtwenties girls who are every bit as good-looking as girls my age would be pretty much off the cards). Thus, the "pool" of girls I would go for, regardless of attractiveness, is restricted to those of my age group, and yet I find that I am attracted to the vast majority of these. If every other female on the planet died, this would still be the case; my choices are "absolute" (under obviously very subjective criteria), rather than comparative. In this case, your claim that "by the law of averages, most people are unattractive" is simply untrue.

    TL;DR: if something is nice to look at, the existence of nicer-looking things than it does not stop it being nice to look at.
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    Define plain.
    Beauty is in the eye of the beholder, or so I'm told
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    It's possible, in that I can fancy a plainer looking girl with a nice personality, but I won't always fancy a girl in this situation. It takes that special something, if you know what I mean. But overall it's about the whole package, physical attraction + good personality = wanting her as a girlfriend. Simple formula.
    Offline

    6
    ReputationRep:
    I don't believe any girl who puts the right effort into her looks will ever be unattractive. Sure, you get a lot of ugly girls, but if you work hard on your body, have the right make up, do your hair nice etc then you're always most of the way towards being pretty
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Domeface)
    […] To use another example, if I had 10 girls who spanned absolutely hideous (1) to utter perfection (10) in roughly equal "steps", then replaced all but 4 and 10 with more 1s, I wouldn't suddenly find 4 any more attractive (even though on your scale she'd now be a 9). I may be forced to lower my standards to improve my chances of getting any girl (if the 10 was simply out my reach), but the 4 would look no better than she had originally. […]
    You have missed the point. The values of the eight new girls apply only to their previous scales (i.e. they were all considered the ugliest). These values are arbitrary so you saying one is absolutely hideous and ten utter perfection is actually irrelevant.

    For example, your first scale could be the ten hottest girls at your school. All the girls are likely to be physically attractive. But ultimately you will be able to grade them from one to ten in attractiveness through statistical sampling. Now if you take the 'hottest' girl out (i.e. ten) and replace her with a number one from another scale, and I think we agree here, that does not mean number nine is now the hottest girl and the new number one continues to be the ugliest. It is a completely new scale which needs to regraded. It might just so happen that the new girl is Adriana Lima and she was considered the ugliest from on a scale of the hottest supermodels in the world, and would likely be the number ten in this new scale. The presence of Lima would make the other girls less attractive; even more so than their scale itself suggests because it is not criterion referenced. In this case, and I have used this example deliberately, the number four – despite having exactly the same rating as before – would actually be uglier now than she had been before. In fact, assuming there was a comparable scale of attractive men who had been there for both scales and would have been paired off equally (i.e. woman ten with man ten, woman nine with man nine), the number four girl would probably lower her standards now because of Lima's presence (i.e. men one to four). In contrast, male number four would probably raise his standards in response because Lima has increased the unseen mean in this new scale and it is very likely that pairings which not match up as well as the first time, especially if you made it a pressure situation (i.e. limited number of girls to ask to go to a dance).
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    Tbh I'd go with a girl who's less attractive. There's more certainty shall I say? Less likely to be deceived.

    Name:  BFHuvUzCIAAx7x9.jpg
Views: 339
Size:  20.0 KB
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Maid Marian)
    Say there's a plain, unattractive or even slightly ugly girl. If you liked her personality, and she was smiley, happy and chatty around you (but very shy around others), could you ever fancy her?

    Or is she completely off limits because of her looks?

    (I'm guessing the answer is yes, but humour me).
    if our personalities lock, sure
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Porkchop)
    I'm going to be straight with you.

    Hell. No.
    wow. but what if shes the only one for you?
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    what an oxymoronic title.

    the thing is OP you've got it the other way round the person you fancy will be attractive to you. So she might be "plain and unattractive" to everyone but the person who likes her will think she's beautiful.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    Sometimes less attractive girls will have a better personality (I'm generalising of course). I suppose the chances are, very attractive girls will always have had attention off guys without even trying, and therefore won't have developed a more interesting personality. So I guess a guy could like a "plain girl" more based on personality than looks, but probably not if they found them unattractive altogether.
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    At the end of the day she doesn't have to be perfect and neither do I care what others think of her, what matters is that I find her attractive.
    Beauty is in the eye of the beholder they say
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ss_s95)
    Tbh I'd go with a girl who's less attractive. There's more certainty shall I say? Less likely to be deceived.

    Name:  BFHuvUzCIAAx7x9.jpg
Views: 339
Size:  20.0 KB
    looooool noway that pic just mind ****ed me. Don't think ill look at a girl in makeup the same. EVER!!! :mad2:
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by evantej)
    You have missed the point. The values of the eight new girls apply only to their previous scales (i.e. they were all considered the ugliest). These values are arbitrary so you saying one is absolutely hideous and ten utter perfection is actually irrelevant.

    For example, your first scale could be the ten hottest girls at your school. All the girls are likely to be physically attractive. But ultimately you will be able to grade them from one to ten in attractiveness through statistical sampling. Now if you take the 'hottest' girl out (i.e. ten) and replace her with a number one from another scale, and I think we agree here, that does not mean number nine is now the hottest girl and the new number one continues to be the ugliest. It is a completely new scale which needs to regraded. It might just so happen that the new girl is Adriana Lima and she was considered the ugliest from on a scale of the hottest supermodels in the world, and would likely be the number ten in this new scale. The presence of Lima would make the other girls less attractive; even more so than their scale itself suggests because it is not criterion referenced. In this case, and I have used this example deliberately, the number four – despite having exactly the same rating as before – would actually be uglier now than she had been before. In fact, assuming there was a comparable scale of attractive men who had been there for both scales and would have been paired off equally (i.e. woman ten with man ten, woman nine with man nine), the number four girl would probably lower her standards now because of Lima's presence (i.e. men one to four). In contrast, male number four would probably raise his standards in response because Lima has increased the unseen mean in this new scale and it is very likely that pairings which not match up as well as the first time, especially if you made it a pressure situation (i.e. limited number of girls to ask to go to a dance).
    I really think that you have missed the point. My point about the "original scale" is that it would be absolute. Number 10 would be the embodiment of absolute perfection (whatever that may be for the "beholder" concerned), with every criteria fulfilled perfectly. Number 1, on the other hand, would be the polar opposite; the antithesis of everything that is considered attractive by the "beholder". Numbers 2 to 9 would then "fill in the gaps", in approximately equal steps. My point is that if we were to remove all but 1, 4 and 10, and replace them with seven other girls who are all on a par with 1 (say 1 is an identical octuplet and these are her sisters), then 4 will now be the 90th percentile of this group. However, this does not make her any more attractive.

    I agree with you that if there were a group of men ranked 1 through 10 in whatever the criteria to get these girls is, then adding lots of extra 1s would result in most of the men reducing their standards if strict pairing is required. However, this does not mean that any of the 1s are actually more attractive; merely that the men have been forced to "settle for less".

    Consider two situations; there is a dance as you describe, with ten men and ten women. In the first situation, the women are as described above, with eight "1s" on the original scale from earlier, one 4 and one 10. In the second, the women consist of the same 10, eight 9s as described earlier, and one 4.

    Now, in which case do you think the men are happier? Obviously the second, because all of them are dancing with more attractive girls (except the 10, but then you can't improve perfection). Despite the fact that in neither case can the men see the girls they would be dancing with in the other scenario, it is obvious that the number 8 man would be happier dancing with a girl who's only a little off his ideal than he would be dancing with a girl who is literally the antithesis of his ideal.

    While our standards might alter with the available sample, the actual level of attractiveness is unchanged. If I'm in a hotel where all the rooms offer views of brick walls and one offers a view of a warehouse, I'll pick the latter, but that doesn't mean I'll feel the need to admire the view. If I'm in a hotel where all the rooms offer a view of the sunset over a stunning bay, except mine (which is the only one I could afford) from which you can't see the sunset but still catch the bay, then I'm not going to look out the window and lament missing the sunset - I'm going to admire the beautiful view in front of me.
 
 
 
Reply
Submit reply
Turn on thread page Beta
TSR Support Team

We have a brilliant team of more than 60 Support Team members looking after discussions on The Student Room, helping to make it a fun, safe and useful place to hang out.

Updated: April 13, 2013
Poll
Do I go to The Streets tomorrow night?

The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

Write a reply...
Reply
Hide
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.