Personality Cafe banner

1 - 20 of 46 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
163 Posts
Discussion Starter #1
How important would you consider external/superficial attractiveness to be?

Say, perhaps as a percentage, what ratio would you choose for personality/internal vs superficial in terms of how you are attracted to them and why?

I'd be interested to know what the average tally would be depending on MBTI type also.
 

·
Registered
INFP 9w1
Joined
·
788 Posts
Are you talking about romantic relationships? Then probably 50/50. Outer AND inner beauty please.
Are you talking about friends? I barely care. Maybe 15% superficial attrativeness. More like basic hygiene please.

As for type: I'm currently getting typed/typing myself. I was interested in MBTI years ago and I typed myself as an INFP and others + me are mostly "voting" for INFP again. It's a pretty obvious case, I guess.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
23,909 Posts
Sadly, it's pretty important(pun unintended).

That's not to say I don't, can't, or never picture myself with people that I don't find completely physically attractive, but I usually am immediately drawn to people I find attractive more so than those I don't, duh. Though, they doesn't necessarily mean that they fall in line with what's conventionally or classically attractive, well, sometimes it doesn't.

Realistically, I don't really interact at all with people though, so usually I have a bit more time to observe from afar, and learn(re: make up) subtleties about person(s), which will then start to influence my thoughts/feelings on/of/towards them. Still, if they're somebody I find attractive, I'll probably observe and scrutinize less due to bias and the fact that I'd probably try not looking at them as much, lol.

For a relationship though? I think I may have made a halfhearted promise to myself that I wouldn't be with somebody that I didn't find attractive(outwardly as well as innerly?), and compatible in the 'right' ways; so, I'm going to have to go with a hard 92.8/7.2% - change muh mind. Okay, 88/12% final offer.






39/61%​
 
  • Like
Reactions: Scoobyscoob

·
Registered
1NXP549
Joined
·
3,156 Posts
I present you with a list:

Personal hygiene; facial structure; Fitness; sense of humor; knowledge; loyalty; honesty; hair color; beard; height; good body proportions independent of weight; ease of communication because for whatever reason some people talk in cursive and I can't understand them; unpredictability; understanding; eye color; I'm adding skincare so its 9 ok im adding openness and taste in music so now we're at 1:1 disregard the thing one line below
8 physical features vs 7 qualities ok i will rank them so here we go

1. personal hygiene
2. unpredictability (might be my death wish who knows)
2. skincare routine i dont want to associate with anyone who has like stuff oozing out of their pores like please see a dermatologist i think this could be partly hygiene too also im not being unreasonable here i have crappy skin too but like severe acne needs to be treated there are treatments for it!!! i dont have a severe acne i get small zits often and those are fine imo im talking about a ZIT PLANTATION here
3. knowledge because nothing pisses me off more than people who don't fact check what they preach i hate HATE HATE I DESPISE PEOPLE THAT DONT FACT CHECK GET YOUR SHIT TOGETHER STOP SPEWING THAT BS AND IF WHAT YOU KNOW IS RIGHT AND IM WRONG GIVE ME A SOURCE!!!! :angry:
4.facial structure for me it's all about the face because I have an ugly mug so I'm left to appreciate a stranger's face instead but I've been thinking what if I just wear a mask and look at myself wearing the mask like not a respirator a costume mask
and I should mention that in facial structure I'm looking for consistency and something interesting to analyze I don't find universally attractive faces too appealing I prefer polarizing faces. but ones that don't look gross somehow so good skincare

5. openness
______________________________________________i think this is the critical point the above are must haves

7. fitness so like not actually an adonis but like average. bonus if lanky but thats all it is just a small plus, the funfetti in the funfetti cake that doesn't even add to the taste but looks cool
8. ease of communication because for whatever reason some people talk in cursive and I can't understand them;
9. sense of humor
6. good body proportions independent of weight um i dont feel like fixing this
10. honesty
12. taste in music
13. understanding
14. hair color
15. beard
16. eye color
17. loyalty
18. height but we're not taking extremes of any kind into account because that would go higher up, attractiveness remember? not saying that short people are unattractive, it's just that without a deep personal connection it wouldn't be my first choice you know and height extremes would only go up like 7 places on this list tops.

you just know I'm coming for that poor post quality warning

so above all I would like t say that the main hte main thing is compatibility so things like things in common i guess and other things i may never even be aware of, even things like the sound of their voice there are some voices that i just never want to hear again
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
15,041 Posts
How important would you consider external/superficial attractiveness to be? Say, perhaps as a percentage, what ratio would you choose for personality/internal vs superficial in terms of how you are attracted to them and why?
I type as ISTP.

I'm not going to lie, in romantic attraction, it matters a lot.

I've been too deformed to get into a relationship my whole life, so all I've had are crushes, which tend to form based on how externally attractive I find a person to be. Fitting conventional standards of beauty/handsomeness is not that important to me as long as I find how they look appealing, or they have some other outward quality that I like (i.e. expert musician, great at martial arts, etc.).

I haven't gotten to know most of my crushes very well, but there have been two I was able to talk with more extensively. With the first one, I actually found him less and less appealing because his personality didn't have much to offer. With the other, he became more attractive because it was interesting and comfortable talking to him.

I don't think I could get into a romantic relationship with someone that I didn't find internally attractive. Overall, I'd say 50% external attraction and 50% internal attraction is important in a relationship, honestly.

For sexual attraction? All that matters to me is external attractiveness. I can happily beat my meat to a bitchy celebrity with an off-putting personality just as long as they're hot.

Superficial attractiveness isn't important in a friendship at all though, as long as they have decent hygiene.
 

·
Beer Guardian
PerC Host, ENTP 5w6 So/Sx 584 ILE
Joined
·
14,896 Posts
How important would you consider external/superficial attractiveness to be?

Say, perhaps as a percentage, what ratio would you choose for personality/internal vs superficial in terms of how you are attracted to them and why?

I'd be interested to know what the average tally would be depending on MBTI type also.
Well there's nothing even slightly suggestive about that post title! :tongue:

I'm interested in many things, but most of all, is there a "light" in her eyes. Is she comfortable in her own skin? Does she express wit, intelligence, curiosity, and joy?

Am I about to say I don't like to look at pretty women? Hell no! But if I'm going to engage in conversation, let alone a relationship, with one. I'm damn sure going to expect more than just looks. Without depth, looks are just "eye-candy" to me. I'd rather be with a woman who is beautiful on the inside than the outside.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,260 Posts
Depends on what's being defined as superficial attractiveness. Voice is huge with me, including intonations, timber, enunciation, vocabulary, everything. Body language and facial expressions too.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
6,409 Posts
How important would you consider external/superficial attractiveness to be?
Superficiality is a feature of the observer, not that of the observed. It lies in the reason one has to value something or not. It's up to you to read into every aspect of somebody and find proper clues. If you can't find proper clues in one's face, then it is your understanding of faces that is shallow.
 

·
Administrator
Joined
·
13,397 Posts
How important would you consider external/superficial attractiveness to be?

Say, perhaps as a percentage, what ratio would you choose for personality/internal vs superficial in terms of how you are attracted to them and why?

I'd be interested to know what the average tally would be depending on MBTI type also.

That's a difficult question to answer, because superficial attraction can change depending on my feelings about someone's insides. So I might perceive something superficial as attractive because I associate it with the inside of someone who I care about.

Or, alternately, I may perceive a superficial characteristic as unattractive because it reminds me of something or someone I dislike, only to later view it differently when I understand the individual better on a deeper than superficial level.

I don't presume to know someone just by looking at them, and I hope I never do as that sort of thing sounds like self-delusion, but I do still react to my own notions about a person.

However, their superficial appearance is hardly important compared to their inside. I would hazard maybe 20% important? But I'm not particularly good at math and I also have a hard time separating superficial attraction from assumptions about a person's personality or inside, as well as superficial attraction from actual understanding of a person's inside.

So basically, it's flexible and can vary. And so it's not easy to answer.

What I mean to say is physical/superficial attraction is important, but it's not static or fixed. It changes with the understanding of who the person is inside, and also how they are experiencing life.

I mean, I guess if we're talking about a sexual relationship then superficial/physical attraction is 100% important--as is attraction to the stuff that is not external/superficial, because of the nature of the relationship--but it is not a static thing anyway. So eh. Yeah I'm not good at math. Each one is 100% important. But no one is perfect.

MBTI is FP probably INFP.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,925 Posts
ISTP

It depends, long term or immediate/temporary.

Long term means all things considered. Appearance would mean relatively little if the rest was desirable. I’ll say 25/75% might be acceptable. The 100/100% pipe dream is never going to happen in reality. Reality is a compromise.

Short term is different. Since you can’t get to know someone in the short term, appearance plays a significant role in attraction. How much a role? There are two rules of thumb. 1). The girls all get prettier at closing time. 2). It depends how badly the testosterone is raging.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
163 Posts
Discussion Starter #12
I've been too deformed to get into a relationship my whole life
Everyone is deformed in some way. Sometimes it's nasty baggage you didn't see until 6 months in, you never know. No one gets out of life unscathed and all that.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
163 Posts
Discussion Starter #13
That's a difficult question to answer, because superficial attraction can change depending on my feelings about someone's insides. So I might perceive something superficial as attractive because I associate it with the inside of someone who I care about.

Or, alternately, I may perceive a superficial characteristic as unattractive because it reminds me of something or someone I dislike, only to later view it differently when I understand the individual better on a deeper than superficial level.

I don't presume to know someone just by looking at them, and I hope I never do as that sort of thing sounds like self-delusion, but I do still react to my own notions about a person.

However, their superficial appearance is hardly important compared to their inside. I would hazard maybe 20% important? But I'm not particularly good at math and I also have a hard time separating superficial attraction from assumptions about a person's personality or inside, as well as superficial attraction from actual understanding of a person's inside.

So basically, it's flexible and can vary. And so it's not easy to answer.

What I mean to say is physical/superficial attraction is important, but it's not static or fixed. It changes with the understanding of who the person is inside, and also how they are experiencing life.

I mean, I guess if we're talking about a sexual relationship then superficial/physical attraction is 100% important--as is attraction to the stuff that is not external/superficial, because of the nature of the relationship--but it is not a static thing anyway. So eh. Yeah I'm not good at math. Each one is 100% important. But no one is perfect.

MBTI is FP probably INFP.

Yeah, I get that it may shift depending on what their personality is like or what values they hold, but I suppose you also ask the questions: Why did I talk to this person in the first place? Why was I attracted to them enough to do this? If I took away what they looked like, would I still be attracted to them based solely on what was said? And, what about the alternative, if I took away what they said, would their face and body be enough?

When you say you don't consider what they look like without knowing them, does that mean you openly talk with everyone? Surely there is a subconscious or vague selection process occurring there somewhere.
 

·
Administrator
Joined
·
13,397 Posts
Yeah, I get that it may shift depending on what their personality is like or what values they hold, but I suppose you also ask the questions: Why did I talk to this person in the first place? Why was I attracted to them enough to do this? If I took away what they looked like, would I still be attracted to them based solely on what was said? And, what about the alternative, if I took away what they said, would their face and body be enough?

When you say you don't consider what they look like without knowing them, does that mean you openly talk with everyone? Surely there is a subconscious or vague selection process occurring there somewhere.
I usually do talk with almost anyone tbh, unless I see something that is a massive red flag like they look like they are dangerous (on meth or something).

I do not only talk to people I am sexually attracted to.

When I get attracted to someone upon first meeting them, I find that I usually have some kind of preconceived idea about them based on their appearance. I make assumptions about who they are.

This happened more when I was much younger and had less experience, and it happens less now that I'm older and I'm aware of a broader range of personalities and life choices. Looks become less important, because I realize they are for-the-most-part fairly meaningless outside of gauging if someone has visible symptoms of an illness.

I used to have more trouble talking to someone I thought looked attractive--I would prefer to avoid it, but I think I talk to most people fairly easily now. The process usually goes like I notice that I think they are attractive in some way and I wonder why.

If anything, the only thing it does is make me more invested in finding out what qualities they have inside, or basically attracting more attention and speculation.

But yes--I talk to anyone. Where I come from it's normal to talk to anyone in a friendly way so long as they are not showing signs of being dangerous (at least that's how I choose to conduct myself--sometimes it does get misinterpreted as attraction (like at bars--but I don't really like going out to places like that, for that reason)).

It's different with age, for me--probably a mix of youth culture and also just more experience understanding that a person's appearance doesn't predict who they are that well. I might end up liking them, and intuition can work to help with that, but ultimately it takes time to figure out who someone is, and actually be attracted to who they are and not who I'm imagining they are based on superficial tells (or even concepts I got from popular culture--like appearing like characters in films or actors/actresses).

I don't think someone's face/body would ever be enough to be seriously attracted to someone. I'd always just be imagining who they are, and filling in my own fantasy from my mind (which I am then attracted to).

I do like drawing and art though--I can understand appreciating the aesthetics of the face and body, and I enjoy drawing them or painting them. But it's not enough for attraction.
 

·
Charge'n Thru The Night
Joined
·
14,110 Posts
I won't date anyone I am not physically attracted to...

With that said.. none of the girl I dated spend a lot of time on how they looked, nor did I expect them to.
 

·
Registered
Why do you want to know my vehicle details.
Joined
·
4,926 Posts
Superficial attractiveness? Like someone who would be considered beautiful based on physical looks alone? Some people really desire that quality. Personally, I like someone whom I find to be attractive while also having a lot of good chemistry.

The sex also has to be good (or insert various expressive superlatives here), but that's a part of having good chemistry with your SO.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,784 Posts
How important would you consider external/superficial attractiveness to be?
Depends on whether you are talking about actual facial/bodily configuration or dress/grooming. I don't much concern myself with the former because most people look fine to me. As long as she looks mostly healthy and is not too thin or chubby, I'll probably be fine with her looks.

On occasion, however, I come across someone I fear I could never be comfortable with because her face reminds me of something or someone unpleasant. For the right personality, I might give her a shot anyways though; personality has a LARGE effect on how people look to me. If I know a good-looking person has a shit personality, her good looks will have a negative association.
Say, perhaps as a percentage, what ratio would you choose for personality/internal vs superficial in terms of how you are attracted to them and why?
I guess 5% for face, 10% for body. 25% for dress/grooming, but that's largely because it reflects personality to some extent. The percentages depend on the individual to some extent because many desirable traits or a single strongly desired trait can make up for undesired traits.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
71 Posts
I can't really set a percentage on it, it's a make or break thing for me. I find most people decently attractive, and personality can make someone way more sexy, so it'd be rare for me to turn someone down solely because of physical attractiveness, but if someone was ugly to me, then I simply would not consider them an option.

The sex should be great. I would consider dating someone asexual, but I would not date someone with whom I felt sex would turn into a frequent chore long-term.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
761 Posts
Can't recall the correct way to say the coming proverb I've heard once but it goes along as "Beauty is an inviting place (?) but it's not enough to keep the door open" and I feel it suits me. In other words, superficial attractiveness can matter, but only temporarily. If I cannot click with that person, then all of sudden, their attractiveness means nothing to me.

I'd consider superficial attractiveness as a bonus and not as a necessity (in terms of romantic relationships).
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
5,927 Posts
It is important.
It is not important.
At the same time.
Complexity doesn't produce easy answers.
It depends.
Really, it does depend on everything. And it all changes all the time too.
 
1 - 20 of 46 Posts
Top