General

Yeah, there's a lot of that. And while I do understand not everyone does well in therapy, therapy isn't the only way to improve yourself. Self-reflection, introspection, and metacognition all go a long way.

I wouldn't either. I personally don't think someone is shallow if they lose attraction to their partner. Munchies said that.



I don't treat groups like a monolith. I understand that a group like women is hugely varied in every regard. That's why I'm always careful to use words like "many", "tend to", etc. I personally think it's ok to notice patterns of behavior in groups of people, just as long as you understand that there will always be a lot of exceptions. It also doesn't address the cause, because social conditioning could play a part. Societal gender roles are one example of a pattern of behavior that is different between men and women, but those roles are expressed differently between individuals, and some reject it completely. Those people are the exceptions, they are in the minority, so they get left out of such discussions, mostly for the sake of brevity. Including such disclaimers every time can really bog down a conversation. I just assume that most people are mentally mature enough to understand this basic fact about human nature.



What I was originally saying was that men and women, on average, have different factors that they find sexually attractive in a partner (not valuable, just sexy). For men, a huge part of that is physical. For women, different factors are more attractive. Because of that, a direct 1 v 1 comparison is impossible, because if someone's partner lost the factors that men like, women would still be attracted to something else about them. What I was attempting to do is provide a functional equivalent, where her partner lost most of the factors that women are attracted to. Keep in mind the inverse is also true. In the depression scenario, if the genders were reversed, most men would also be frustrated and might not tolerate it either, but they would still find her sexy as long as her appearance didn't change too much.



In that case, I don't think OP is shallow at all. In his first post, he said he sometimes sees people he's physically attracted to, but doesn't like "their personality, morale or view on life". He said he does meet women who he's not attracted to, but "with whom I share at least some intellectual and psycological common ground, and where things are fun and drama free." The entire point of his thread was to ask about the logistics of dating someone you like as a person but don't find attractive. In the scenario you gave where she lost weight, I answered that "he would probably still be in love with her and care about her deeply, and would still value the marriage" but would essentially have erectile dysfunction when he's with her. Does this sound like someone who only cares about outward appearance to you?

The reason this discussion focuses so heavily on sexual attraction is because he's still in the stage where he's looking for a partner. At that point, attraction is like the base foundation that qualifies someone for possibly dating. If a guy is trying to meet women in the club, he'll scan the environment looking at people. His eye will be caught by someone sexy, and he'll approach. If a guy approaches a woman and is totally unappealing off rip, she will probably dismiss him quickly. If both find each other attractive, then a conversation can take place and you can build from there onto other things.

I don't treat groups like a monolith. I understand that a group like women is hugely varied in every regard. That's why I'm always careful to use words like "many", "tend to", etc. I personally think it's ok to notice patterns of behavior in groups of people, just as long as you understand that there will always be a lot of exceptions. It also doesn't address the cause, because social conditioning could play a part. Societal gender roles are one example of a pattern of behavior that is different between men and women, but those roles are expressed differently between individuals, and some reject it completely. Those people are the exceptions, they are in the minority, so they get left out of such discussions, mostly for the sake of brevity. Including such disclaimers every time can really bog down a conversation. I just assume that most people are mentally mature enough to understand this basic fact about human nature.



What I was originally saying was that men and women, on average, have different factors that they find sexually attractive in a partner (not valuable, just sexy). For men, a huge part of that is physical. For women, different factors are more attractive. Because of that, a direct 1 v 1 comparison is impossible, because if someone's partner lost the factors that men like, women would still be attracted to something else about them. What I was attempting to do is provide a functional equivalent, where her partner lost most of the factors that women are attracted to. Keep in mind the inverse is also true. In the depression scenario, if the genders were reversed, most men would also be frustrated and might not tolerate it either, but they would still find her sexy as long as her appearance didn't change too much.



You didn't provide a functional equivalent. I don't think you realize that who a woman is attracted to and who she'll form a relationship with is a Venn Diagram. There are also plenty of men out there who will still find their SO's attractive as their bodies change. It's super common in long-term relationships.

The issue people are having with OP has been explicitly stated several times by several people - myself included. But since you missed it, I will repeat it. OP has explicitly said that if a woman isn't a feedee, he can't feel sexual attraction towards them. However, he's met a number of women that he feels are perfectly lovely in every other aspect. So he wants to settle and have a relationship with a woman he cannot feel sexual attraction towards.

Basically, said woman could not be sexually fulfilled while they are together. And OP isn't interested in sharing either, so it extra sucks for said woman. Doesn't help that what he said comes off as fetishizing and objectifying women.

Continuing my post because I ran out of room.

The reason I said you are treating women like a monolith is precisely because you use words like "mostly" and "typically." Both words mean "This is how things are except for a few exceptions." That's creating a monolith.

The truth is that there's a lot of diversity in how women approach things. This includes sexuality.

Of course, it's the same way for men too. Attraction alone can't be a base for a relationship, because personality and life goals matter much more when you're eventually going to live together.



True, love is also a big factor. I didn't think to mention that, but the reason why is that in cases like OP where he has such a narrowly defined range of attraction, it's much easier to lose EVERYTHING that he finds attractive outside of love, which might not be enough to make up for it. To be clear, I don't think his situation is very common.



I completely agree, and I said the same thing in my own words in an earlier post, where I was outlining his options. I said several times that sexuality is important to people in relationships, so most women will not be interested in that kind of arrangement.



My understanding was that seeing people as a monolith meant that you viewed them all the same way, or the exceptions are so rare that they're negligible. I don't see it that way. A majority might be only 50.1%. Even something like 20% might be the main trend if everything else is smaller. Let's say we were able to run a survey and poll every single woman in the western world about what they find attractive. Do you think you'd get a billion answers that were all completely different, like only one woman in the world likes tall men? Or would there be some overlap between answers? If we tallied up the common answers, we could turn that data into a pie chart. Do you think the slices would be completely equal in size, like the same exact number of women like tall men as ones who prefer short men? Or would the slices all be different sizes?

When we talk in generalities, we're really just guessing about which pie slice is the largest. This is something most people do to some degree in different ways. It's a way to try to understand the world and how to move within it. Yes, this can veer into being toxic with some people who take it too far, but that's not always the case. Streaming networks use generalizations to predict which shows will be popular. As you're growing up, you pay attention to how people react to you and adjust. "People don't like it when I do X, so I should avoid doing X from now on", even though that generalization isn't absolute, and there are many people who do like it. Pattern recognition is extremely common, but most people don't even realize when they're doing it.

I believe you implied that a man who isn’t attracted to a woman with specific physical features is an equivalent situation as a woman who loses attraction to a partner who won’t treat their depression and stops grooming. They’re not really equivalent in my mind. If you used a woman who only dates men over 6’ tall or only drives certain cars or something like that, then sure, I think we’re in the same realm of “shallowness”.

While shallowness is usually used as a dig (sometimes with good reason), having unrealistic standards for potential partners isn’t a dig at all. If I’m only attracted to 14’ tall red eyed women, I’ll probably… wait, um, I’ll be back in a minute.

But being unattached isn’t a crime at all, and having platonic friends of the opposite gender is a wonderful thing. I think sometimes websites like this one train people to think that there is this fantasy person waiting for you, and that’s just not always true. It’s good to unplug sometimes.

The point I was trying to make is that in general, it seems like men have a narrower list of qualities that they find sexy in a partner, while women generally have a wider range of things they find sexually attractive beyond purely physical. It's not about who you would date, but what turns you on. Your example of a woman who only likes 6' tall men is an exact comparison, but that's because the woman's list of turn-ons is also very narrow, which I think isn't very common for women. What I was trying to do was think of some common answers I've heard for what women find attractive beyond just looks (sense of humor, etc.), and come up with a scenario where ALL of those qualities disappear at once. Perhaps I made a bad analogy, but I'm struggling to think of a different one that still illustrates that point.

My personal definition of shallowness has nothing to do with what someone's attracted to, no matter how specific. I think shallowness comes in when someone values sexuality above anything else in a relationship. So to make another strained analogy, you could have a guy who's only sexually attracted to 4' tall rodeo clowns, which is super specific and rare, but if he cared the most about personality and family values in his rodeo clown (and is even willing to bend some on the sexual side so he can find someone), he wouldn't be shallow in my opinion. However, you could have a different guy who is attracted to women of all heights, sizes, races and ages, but he doesn't care about anything else, he just wants a hot girlfriend and nothing else matters to him, that guy would be shallow.



Yeah that's true, but I think that problem goes way beyond fetish sites, it's just more pronounced here because we're looking for unicorns. But people have been accusing Disney of giving kids unrealistic expectations on relationships for decades. That, and friends often support each other by saying things like "Don't worry, you'll find that dream guy someday." I think a lot of people just aren't happy with "good enough" anymore.

I think your definitions might be strained, there, but that’s ok. There are certainly variations on “shallow”, too. It’s a spectrum. Being attracted to tall men is shallow, but normal. Breaking out the tape measure on the first date and leaving an otherwise pleasant date if he’s not 6’2” is a different story.

I will say that women can be just as shallow as men, it’s just that male shallowness has been excused a whole lot more over the years.

I would also say that if you’re not interested in a romantic relationship with a person unless they’re specifically eager to gain weight for your sexual gratification, it might be worth taking a time out and assessing what’s going on. That feels to me like the point where a fetish is causing harm, not enhancing your life. But maybe not!

Wait, so what's your definition of shallow then? Is it being attracted to any physical characteristic or having any fetish?



That all depends on how rare your preferred partner is. It's preventing him from finding anyone in Sweden, but it might not in California. If his fetish were BDSM instead, he wouldn't have a problem anywhere. That's why he has to make a change if he doesn't want to end up forever alone. He has to sacrifice one of the two, either his fetish or his home. Either one will feel like a big loss, so it's up to him which he values more. If he has to suppress his fetish, it's never going away. He'll have to learn coping strategies and make peace with feeling unfulfilled in life. Also I wouldn't frame it like feedees are eager to gain weight for their partner's sexual gratification, they do it for their own sexual gratification, and they have shared goals with their feeder. Maybe that's just nitpicking semantics though, idk.

Wait, so what's your definition of shallow then? Is it being attracted to any physical characteristic or having any fetish?



I explained right after the sentence you quoted that I think there are degrees of shallowness. Men are historically seen as being shallow based on physical appearance, but have also historically been allowed to behave that way without a lot of repercussion. That might be changing with women having a much larger dating pool due to technology.

I also suggested to the OP that he relocate, but he said no. I don’t know that moving is a guarantee of anything, either. A relationship is a 2 way transaction